1999-10-143914SENATE966701999-10-14The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Notices96679667Senator Tierney to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) that, on 12 October 1999, the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation (Mr McGauran) officially opened the `Ribbons of Steel' exhibition which was staged in the Parliament House theatrette foyer, and (ii) that this exhibition of art works has been developed as part of the celebration of 84 years of steel making at BHP, Newcastle, and is representative of 80 works, including installations, murals, photographic exhibitions, indigenous cultural heritage, plays, choirs and performances; and(b) commends: (i) the spirit of bipartisanship that has been demonstrated by all involved, particularly by the Member for Newcastle (Mr Morris) in jointly hosting the exhibition; and (ii) BHP and the Australia Council for the Arts for sponsoring the exhibition and supporting this showcase of human cultural endeavour.Business96679667Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following government business orders be considered from 12.45 p.m. till not later than 2 p.m. today:No. 2— Customs (Tariff Concession System Validations) Bill 1999No. 3— Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 [1999]No. 4— Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Border Interception) Bill 1999No. 5— Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 19999667Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:(a) general business order of the day No. 59 (Workplace Relations Amendment (Australian Defence Force Service and Training) Bill 1999 (No. 2) ); and(b) consideration of government documents.Notices96679667Items of business were postponed as follows:General business notice of motion no. 345 standing in the name of Senator Woodley for today, proposing an order for the production of a document by the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services (Senator Macdonald), postponed till 18 October 1999.Bills9667s2309667Motion (by Senator Greig) agreed to:(1) That the Anti-Genocide Bill 1999 be referred to the Legal and Constitutional References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 2000, together with the following matters: The adequacy of Australia's implementation of the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and other relevant international obligations, with particular reference to: (a) the formulation of an appropriate definition of genocide; (b) the status of the convention under Australian law, particularly with reference to the decision of the High Court in Minister of State forImmigration and Ethnic Affairs v Ah Hin Teoh ; (c) laws in other jurisdictions that have implemented the convention; (d) the appropriateness or otherwise of the retrospective application of the provisions of the bill; (e) the implications of the Federal Court decision on 1 September 1999 in Nulyarimma v Thompson ; (f) the extraterritorial application of Australian law, particularly as it may relate to East Timor; and (g) the relationship between Australian and international criminal law enforcement mechanisms for bringing perpetrators of genocide to justice.(2) That the committee, in its report, include suggested draft amendments to the bill.Business96689668Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (1999 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1999, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.Bills9668r917Billsr8949668Bills received from the House of Representatives.09:34:009668Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I indicate to the Senate that those bills which have just been announced are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper . I move:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a first time.966809:35:009668Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 and move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) AMENDMENT BILLThe bill has two primary purposes.The bill's first object is to strengthen arrangements for dealing with investigations of corruption by public officials, paedophilia and organised crime. The bill's second object is to implement a recommendation of the Telecommunications Interception Policy Review to continue the provisions allowing interception warrants to be issued by nominated members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).The interception of telecommunications by law enforcement agencies, and subsequent dealing with intercepted information, are regulated by the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. That act provides a detailed scheme of control designed to protect the privacy and confidentiality of communications passing over the Australian telecommunications system. Intrusion into a communication, even by law enforcement agencies, is subject to strict control. Interceptions can only be carried out by declared Commonwealth and State law enforcement agencies and only under the authority of a warrant.I now turn to the provisions in the bill that are directed against the problem of corruption by public officers, paedophilia and organised crime.The bill contains a number of provisions relating to the Queensland Crime Commission and the Western Australian Anti-Corruption Commission. The Commonwealth supports the government in Queensland in its moves to deal with paedophilia and organised crime and the Western Australian Government in its efforts to excise corruption, crime and serious improper conduct of public officers. The Commonwealth is ready to assist in providing the Queensland Crime Commission and the Western Australian Anti-Corruption Commission with appropriate and effective powers. Experience has shown that covert surveillance is one of the most powerful investigative tools for uncovering and prosecuting crime.The bill will amend the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 to permit these Commissions to receive and use intercepted information originally obtained by other law enforcement agencies where the information relates to a matter the Commissions may investigate. The amendments also open the way for a declaration to be made which will permit either Commission to apply for warrants on their own behalf once the Attorney-General, as the responsible Minister, is satisfied that the statutory pre-conditions of a declaration have been fulfilled in those States. These amendments will provide both agencies with the best tools for fighting crime.The amendments do not involve any effective widening of interception powers.I shall now address the aspect of the bill which relates to the power of nominated members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to issue warrants.Section 3 of the Telecommunications (Interception) and Listening Device Amendment Act 1997 provides that the power of nominated AAT members to issue warrants will expire on 31 December 1999. Section 103A of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 required a review be undertaken on amendments made by the Telecommunications (Interception) and Listening Device Amendment Act 1997. This included the provisions conferring a power on nominated members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to issue warrants.The review found that the practice of nominated members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal issuing warrants has worked well. They bring to the task a seriousness of purpose and commitment to principles of accountability which serves the public interest well. The Government believes that the nominated members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal have demonstrated both the independence and experience necessary for this role. In response to the review, the Government will repeal section 3 of the Telecommunications (Interception) and Listening Device Amendment Act 1997, thereby allowing nominated members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to continue to issue warrants.The amendments have no significant financial impact.WORKPLACE RELATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MORE JOBS, BETTER PAY) BILL 1999Madam President, it is a national imperative for there to be progressive, evolutionary change to Australia's workplace relations system.Australian workplaces operate in an ever changing, ever challenging environment.Similarly, as workers we want our living standards, and those of our families to improve. The living standards of Australian workers and families depend on workplaces that have the capacity to maintain and improve those standards. Australia may be isolated geographically from the rest of the world, but we must keep pressing to achieve an internationally competitive workplace relations system. The rest of the world is much closer to us than we really think. It has a say in the quality of our pay packets.With the world moving forward, remaining stationary in our reform effort really means that we fall behind. And if our workplace relations system falls behind, then so do our living standards.And of course, workplace relations systems not only affect those in jobs, but also the chances of unemployed Australians to get jobs.We still have too many unemployed people in Australia.That's why it is the responsibility of the Australian government to do what a government is elected to do—to show leadership in the national interest, to make Australia stronger and to implement the improvements to Australia's workplace relations system that we promised at the last federal election.Of course, workplace relations does not just involve economic considerations. It is also about human relationships, about fair dealing between employers and employees and about social considerations, such as getting the relationship between our work and family life better balanced and giving the many unemployed an opportunity to compete in the labour market.That's why workplace relations reform is, under the Coalition government, evolutionary change. Real people, real families, real workplaces are involved. But if this parliament considers it right to make change in an evolutionary rather than radical way, then it must take up the opportunities for amendment as and when the next stage in the reform cycle comes along.The changes the Coalition government seeks to make to the workplace relations system in the second half of 1999 are the next evolutionary changes to the system, three years after the 1996 reforms.They are what we said we would do when we released our More Jobs, Better Pay policy in September 1998.Our 1996 reforms have helped Australia become much stronger with fewer strikes, low inflation, higher productivity and low interest rates, have helped Australian families improve their living standards with more flexibility and more disposable income, have protected the low paid with real wage increases, have helped create more than 500,000 new jobs in our economy and have helped reduce unemployment to the lowest levels this decade.These outcomes are the product of having been determined enough to do the right thing and take the initial steps in the reform cycle three years ago. It follows that continuing the same type of reforms, and building on their strengths, will allow all of us to reap the same benefits into the future. That is why the government has introduced this bill—not as an abstract policy prescription, but to improve the quality of workplace relations in Australia and the outcomes for workers, employers and those seeking work.We may not know the future, but we can make it more secure for our nation, for ourselves and for our families.We have such a good quality of life in Australia that we cannot afford to miss reform opportunities.This next phase of workplace relations reforms builds on the objects of the 1996 system that we now know has worked well. It proposes important amendments that are necessary in light of experience to improve the operation of the system, entrench its gains and extend its benefits more widely throughout the workforce.. The amendments will continue to give workers and employers at their workplace more choice and more opportunities to manage their relationships without forced interference from unwanted parties.. They will continue to end the paternalism of the old system which told workers, their work mates and their employer what was good for them, without any regard to their own circumstances.. They will make intervention by third parties in decisions made by workers or their employers more democratic and more relevant, removing similar centralisation and control eliminated by governments in comparable economies, including measures taken in the United Kingdom in the mid 1980s and not since overturned by the Blair Labour government.. They will continue to devolve powers to the workplace where workers rights to make agreements individually or as a group, to withdraw their labour or not, to join or not join unions and to decide just how they want their industrial disputes resolved should be recognised and respected.. They will continue to remove unnecessary complexity from the system so that workers and employers get a real say, not just lawyers, management consultants and union officials.. They will continue to maintain a safety net of minimum wages and conditions to protect the low paid and disadvantaged in the workforce.. They will continue to remove red tape and unjustified cost, especially from small and medium sized businesses, including in the area of unfair dismissals. ObjectsThe objects of the Workplace Relations Act will be amended to reflect and reinforce the reform agenda and to emphasise the proper safety net role of awards. The principal object and the objects of Part VI will be amended to make it clear that the safety net is intended to help address the needs of the low paid. The amendments clarify that awards should be primarily for the protection of the low paid (rather than other groups) and that the level of wages and conditions is a factor in meeting their needs. They also indicate (by referring to `appropriate' allowable award matters) that this safety net does not require every allowable award matter to be included in each award made under the act.The principal object is also being amended to recognise the role of mediation as an option available for dispute resolution; articulate the principle underpinning the introduction of secret ballots, and recognise changes to the Commission's powers and functions in relation to both voluntary and compulsory conciliation. The amended principal object will also make it clear that industrial action that does not have protected status under Division 8 of Part VIB of the act is inconsistent with the purposes of the act. The act does not imply any legitimacy for such unprotected industrial action and provisions of the act about stopping or preventing such action should be applied in that context.Workplace AgreementsAustralian Workplace Agreements (AWAs), Certified Agreements (CAs) and the `no disadvantage test' are retained. However, agreement approval will be simplified by streamlining some of the current procedural and approval requirements. Agreements based on the corporations power of the Constitution may, as an alternative to lodgement in the Commission, be lodged with the Workplace Relations Registrar with appropriate supporting documentation, and will only be tested by the Commission in certain circumstances including when a threshold number of employees raise objections to the agreement within a specified period. For other certified agreements, the Commission will only conduct public hearings on request, or where it has serious concerns regarding the agreement.Unions that have chosen to be bound by agreements made directly with employees will no longer be able to block the extension or variation of those agreements. Provisions currently placing limitations on certified agreements that apply to a part of a single business will be repealed. A CA made after the nominal expiry date of an award made under section 170MX will prevail over the award to the extent of any inconsistency, and a CA made under the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act will prevail over a CA made under the provisions of the previous Industrial Relations Act to the extent of any inconsistency.The current filing and approval processes for AWAs will be amalgamated to ensure a much simpler and more streamlined process. AWAs and variation agreements will be able to take effect from the day of signing or the date specified in the agreement or the day employment commences. There are complementary provisions introducing cooling off periods and provisions to fully protect employee interests. AWAs for high salary earners (those whose annual remuneration is higher than $68,000) will be fast tracked, and identical AWAs will not be required to be offered to all comparable employees.Approval of all AWAs will be by the Employment Advocate. Where agreements are made which raise concerns about the `no disadvantage' test (NDT), the Employment Advocate will retain the right to request that parties modify their agreement if it does not meet the requirements of the NDT, or reject the agreement. The Employment Advocate will also be empowered to approve AWAs on public interest grounds (for example, to meet circumstances where short-term business survival is at issue) but must do so in accordance with principles which may be laid down by the AWRC.In addition to simplifying agreement-making processes, the legislation will allow greater scope for use of AWAs, including their operating more effectively in combination with CAs. AWAs will prevail over CAs, either to the extent of any inconsistency or comprehensively (at present, this may only occur in limited circumstances). In addition, CAs will not be able to operate to exclude later AWAs, as is the case under current arrangements. Provision is also made for an AWA to operate to the exclusion of an award made under s170MX that would otherwise apply to an employee's employment.AwardsConsistent with changes to the principal object and the objects of Part VI focussing the safety net on the low paid, our amendments make it explicit that maintenance of internal relativities between classification-based rates of pay within awards is not a relevant consideration in adjusting the safety net.Allowable matters provisions will be tightened to clarify the original intent of the legislation and maintain the statutory rigour of the allowable matters provisions and to remove elements which duplicate other legislative entitlements, or are more appropriately decided at the workplace. Our amendments will more clearly require the Commission, when simplifying awards, to have regard to the primacy of agreement-making, the productivity and efficiency requirements of businesses (including small business), the removal of inefficient work practices and the importance of regulating workplaces to the minimum extent only.The definitions and specifications of the various allowable award matters are also being tightened by reference to the basic elements of the relevant entitlement that is within the award making jurisdiction (eg redundancy pay will only relate to genuine redundancy, and not to custom and practice that arises in certain industries, and the range of matters referred to by "other like forms of leave" will be more closely specified).The current provisions of s.89A which allow matters that are incidental to the specified allowable award matters and necessary for the effective operation of the award are amended so that only matters which are essential for the purpose of making a particular provision operate in a practical way can be included. A full bench of the AWRC will be required to deal with applications for exceptional matters orders (EMOs), rather than just multi-employer EMOs as is currently the case.To provide a greater incentive to the parties for the award simplification process to be undertaken expeditiously, the current process for dealing with obsolete awards is being amended to require the Registrar to identify such awards every three years (rather than the current five) and, once these awards are identified, to require the AWRC to finalise its dealings within six months. After an interim period of six months, awards will be required to be simplified before they can be varied for the purposes of including future safety net adjustments.Interaction of State and federal jurisdictionsThe Workplace Relations Act is being amended to strengthen the presumption in favour of existing forms of regulation of employment relationships to the exclusion of proposed new federal award coverage. It will give greater recognition to cases where an employment relationship has been subject to statutory minimum employment conditions. This stronger presumption will apply to all cases before the AWRC which have not yet been finally determined on the question of whether a federal award should be made.Roping-inBusinesses, and particularly small businesses, require better notice of proposed hearings of union roping-in applications and logs of claims, and broader rights of objection to them. Parties will be given at least 28 days notice prior to the initial listing of logs of claims and disputes will not be able to found in relation to logs which include unlawful demands or claims relating to matters outside the Commission's jurisdiction. In addition, small business and other employers need to better understand their workplace relations responsibilities—to accommodate this, the act is being amended so that when logs of claims are served, the industrial organisation making the demand must serve the other party with an information sheet relating to such claims. Content requirements for the sheet will be detailed in the regulations.Australian Workplace Relations Commission (AWRC)The Australian Industrial Relations Commission is to be renamed the Australian Workplace Relations Commission (AWRC) to reinforce the workplace focus of the system. Consistent with the Government's policy statement, More Jobs Better Pay , a number of changes are also being made to introduce contemporary management practices into the structure of the Commission and provide the President with more responsibility over its work.In order to put in place a more contemporary structure and increase the Commission's flexibility to meet the changing mix and volume of its workload, the Government is introducing a new three-tier structure to replace the current five-tier structure. The new structure will be comprised of a President, Vice Presidents and Commissioners (collapsing the current Vice President, Deputy President and Senior Deputy President levels into the one level of Vice President). The remuneration of current members will be protected. Seniority will be removed as a basis for appointment to higher levels and revised tenure arrangements will be introduced for new appointees (other than the President) allowing appointments for a fixed term of seven years. Provision will also be made for acting Commissioners, on a similar basis to arrangements which currently apply to Presidential members. This will allow for the AWRC to respond more flexibly to changing workloads.In addition, a number of changes are being made in key areas of the Commission's operations. The President, in conjunction with the Workplace Relations Registrar, is to be given greater responsibility and powers for managing the work of the Commission and the Registry, including over the training and professional development of members (also taking into account the needs of the concurrently appointed State members).These changes will underpin the continuing introduction of contemporary management practices to improve access to, and the service delivery of, the Commission and Registry. They will be complemented by enhanced reporting requirements.ConciliationIn order to assist the parties to achieve better outcomes by taking greater responsibility for their workplace relations arrangements, and also with the formal recognition being given to voluntary mediation, it is necessary to vary current compulsory conciliation requirements. The Commission's compulsory conciliation powers will be limited to disputes relating to allowable matters; following termination of a bargaining period on certain grounds; demarcation disputes; unfair dismissal cases; applications for equal remuneration orders and in exceptional circumstances, other disputes. Conciliation of private disputes in relation to matters over which there cannot be arbitration will be voluntary with a flat fee of $500 per application to be charged by the AWRC.Complementary measures are being put in place to remove unnecessary procedural requirements in relation to voluntary conciliation in the agreement stream to reinforce the voluntary and informal nature of the proceedings.MediationMore Jobs, Better Pay committed the Government to giving formal legislative recognition to the provision of voluntary mediation services in industrial disputes as an alternative or supplement to the quasi-legal processes of the Commission. While informal mediation has always been available to the parties, a clear role is being articulated for mediation as a substitute for tribunal-based involvement. This legislation formally recognises the availability of mediation on a voluntary basis as an option for dispute resolution prior to protected action, during suspension of a bargaining period, following termination of a bargaining period, as a step in dispute resolution procedures and in relation to agreement-making generally. The legislation also ensures that federal and State industrial authorities can be restrained from acting in appropriate cases where the parties are undergoing mediation. A facility will be established to accredit mediators and promote the use of mediation.This change is consistent with the progressive development of a less centralised, less structured and more varied system that offers the parties more choice to develop their own workplace relations arrangements and culture. Mediation will provide an opportunity for a less interventionist and more informal alternative to the Commission's conciliation processes. The involvement of independent mediators will also extend services for regional and small business, and for parties not wishing to get involved in the Commission's formal processes.To support the effective use of mediation, a Mediation Adviser will be established to establish and maintain a list of accredited mediators, approve mediation agencies to carry out assessment and accreditation of mediators, set competency standards in association with approved agencies and promote the use of mediation.Unlawful industrial action and complianceThe act is being amended to improve the efficiency of the making and enforcement of orders against unprotected industrial action and to give better access to common law remedies. The Commission will be required to make an order under s.127 directing industrial action to cease as soon as it is satisfied that such action is unprotected. The legislation is also being amended to require that the AWRC as far as practicable must deal with a s.127 application within 48 hours of the application being received. If the application has not been determined within the 48 hours, the AWRC must issue an interim order to stop the industrial action, unless to do so would be contrary to the public interest. The amendments also clarify that sympathy and political action is unprotected.In addition to directing that unprotected action cease, the AWRC will be able to make an order to prohibit impending or planned industrial action. It will also be able to make an order where there has been industrial action in the past three months and there is a possibility of further industrial action. Applications for orders will be able to be made by a person either directly or indirectly affected (or likely to be affected) by industrial action, and orders will be able to be made in respect of unions and their officials.We are amending the act to clarify that orders may only be made against employers in respect of unprotected lockout action (not, for example, to prevent employers from changing rosters or relocating staff). Orders will be available in situations where work is regulated by an agreement made under the Workplace Relations Act.Our amendments further require the Federal Court to act promptly in dealing with applications for enforcement of section 127 orders. State Supreme Courts are also being given the power to enforce s.127 orders (including by injunction). Current restrictions on access to court (tort) action will be lifted by repeal of s.166A of the WR Act.Protected Industrial Action and Secret BallotsProtected industrial action will be preceded by longer (five-day) notice periods and by a secret ballot process overseen by the AWRC, which will be empowered to determine whether a ballot should or should not proceed. An application for a secret ballot can be refused on the grounds that the applicant is engaged in pattern bargaining or is not genuinely trying to reach agreement.An application for a secret ballot will only be able to be made during a bargaining period and will be required to include a range of information, such as the proposed certified agreement to which a secret ballot relates, the group of employees or members who are to be balloted, and the question or questions to be asked in the ballot. Members of organisations making agreements (or the employees to be covered in the case of non-union agreements) would be eligible to vote in a ballot. The vote would be carried by a majority of valid votes cast with a quorum required of at least 50 per cent of eligible voters. The ballot paper will be required to include information on a range of matters together with a prescribed statement outlining the implications of taking or not taking industrial action. The Government will refund 80 per cent of the reasonable and genuinely incurred costs of a ballot.The AWRC will be empowered to suspend a bargaining period on application from a negotiating party if 14 days have passed since the protected industrial action commenced, unless the AWRC considers it is in the public interest for the bargaining period to continue. Suspension or termination of a bargaining period by the AWRC will also be required in the case of a party engaging in unprotected action in relation to a proposed agreement. The amendments will also allow for a bargaining period to be terminated if a party is engaging in pattern bargaining. The Commission will still be able to terminate a bargaining period of its own accord in certain circumstances where protected action is threatening the health or welfare of the population or impacting adversely on the economy overall.Where suspension or termination of the bargaining period occurs, the AWRC will be required to inform the parties of the availability of voluntary conciliation and mediation services and of the role of the Mediation Adviser.Strike PayIn order to prevent distortion of the statutory intention, the legislation will expressly define the period in relation to which payment of strike pay is prohibited as the whole of each working day upon which any industrial action occurs.Freedom of AssociationAmendments will give wider coverage to the freedom of association provisions of the act by closing loopholes which have emerged in the operation of Part XA. There will be greater protection for employers and sub-contractors and their employees against indirect pressure or coercion. In particular, conduct which breaches freedom of association under the guise of `site agreements' will be prohibited. The bill expressly prohibits the establishment or maintenance of union closed shops, and person who are in breach of provisions of Part XA relating to union membership or restrictive arrangements may be liable for additional penalties if they are also found to have established or maintained closed shops. The current prohibition on clauses in agreements which directly require union preference will equally apply to indirect preference provisions such as union encouragement or discouragement clauses. Review of ContractsThe provisions of the act which allow the Federal Court to set aside or vary contracts made by independent contractors, will be repealed.Right of EntryIn order to enter an employer's premises for the purposes of investigation or discussion, a union official will be required to have a written invitation from a union member. Invitations are to be effective for 28 days. To protect the anonymity of individual union members, a system of certificates will be introduced which will require union officials, if so desired by their members, to obtain a certificate from a Registrar. These certificates will act as a substitute for an invitation for the purpose of entry to premises.Under the proposed changes, there will be a requirement that permit holders provide at least 24 hours written notice to the relevant employer and the occupier of the premises of their intention to enter the workplace. Union officials will only have the right to inspect records which relate to the employment of their members. Where a permit-holder has intentionally hindered or obstructed any person or otherwise acted in an improper manner, the Commission will have the power to revoke or vary a permit.Termination of EmploymentThe burden on employers, especially small and medium businesses, of unfair dismissal applications will be further eased through reforms to discourage speculative and unmeritorious claims and introduce greater rigour into the processing of applications. Access to costs will be widened, contingency fees disclosed and the Commission will be required, at the conciliation stage, to make a recommendation as to the appropriate settlement or discontinuance of the matter, having regard to the merits of the case. Constructive dismissal claims, where employees resign but claim unfair dismissal, will be tightened.Madam President, the introduction of this bill implements almost all remaining elements of the Coalition's More Jobs Better Pay workplace relations policy for which a mandate was obtained at the October 1998 federal election. Already since the election the government has introduced and reintroduced legislation relating to youth wages, unfair dismissals and occupational superannuation. This bill also follows an extensive consultation process over the past 18 months, including the release of six ministerial discussion papers, a detailed election policy, a public implementation paper and stakeholder consultation through the National Labour Consultative Council and its Committee on Industrial Legislation. I thank all those who have constructively participated in these consultations. Australia faces many challenges, some foreseen and some unforseen as we enter the next millennium. We know that continuing to reform our workplace relations system, especially in relatively strong economic times, will make us stronger for those unforseen economic and social challenges, and for the protection of the Australian sense of a fair go.I commend the bill to the Senate.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned till the first day of the 1999 summer sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.Bills9674r9149674Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.967409:36:009674Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The purpose of the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No.1) 1999 is to introduce new measures for sustainable management of fisheries, in particular, new powers, offences and sanctions to ensure compliance with fisheries management measures.The Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No 1) 1999 consists of two schedules. Schedule 1 relates to new forfeiture and enforcement powers to combat illegal foreign fishing. These measures are aimed at ensuring more effective fisheries surveillance and enforcement within the Australian fishing zone. Schedule 2 relates to implementing obligations necessary to ratify an international Agreement termed the `Fish Stocks Agreement'. The full title is the `Agreement for the Implementation of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks '.Both Schedules of the bill address the growing issue of illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing. Illegal fishing occurs when foreign fishing vessels operate within the Australian fishing zone without authorisation. Unregulated and unreported fishing occurs on the high seas where fisheries management arrangements, established to manage particular stocks, are ignored. This is despite the duties countries have under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to cooperate to implement management measures under such arrangements.There is rising concern over the ongoing activities of illegal foreign fishing vessels in the Australian fishing zone, particularly in remote areas of the zone, such as our sub-Antarctic Territories and off north western Australia. Australia's sovereign right to manage the fish resources in these areas is challenged by such activities and the Government is determined to take stern measures to deter illegal foreign fishing in the Australian fishing zone. In the sub-Antarctic, illegal fishing and fishing occurring outside management regimes established by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources costs the Australian industry potentially tens of millions of dollars per year in terms of fish stolen. It also undermines cooperative management under the Commission and poses a threat to the Antarctic Treaty system itself.Illegal fishers, particularly those in the sub-Antarctic are highly organised and adaptable operators chasing very valuable fish in extremely harsh conditions. Penalties for illegal foreign fishing are proposed to be doubled, recognising the high value of such fisheries to Australia, the large profits to be made by illegal operators and the high costs of enforcement. An amendment is also proposed to overcome the problems with enforcement action experienced following the apprehension of the Aliza Glacial , caught illegally fishing within the Australian fishing zone around Heard Island. In that case, a third party who was the mortgagee of the vessel, successfully intervened to assert the primacy of its interest in the vessel under the Admiralty Act 1988 over enforcement action by the Commonwealth. The amendment makes clear that third party interests will not prevail over Commonwealth enforcement action by virtue of the Admiralty Act.Amendments under Schedule 1 will provide for a more effective catch, gear and boat forfeiture scheme to deter illegal foreign fishing in the Australian fishing zone.Australian fisheries officers will be able to seize foreign boats, fishing gear or catch which have been automatically forfeited to the Commonwealth as a result of illegal fishing in the Australian Fishing Zone. The onus will then fall to the illegal foreign fishers to establish their legitimacy for being present in the Australian fishing zone without authorisation. The amendments implement the international law principle of constructive presence. This enables action, outside the Australian fishing zone, against motherships that support illegal foreign fishers within the Australian fishing zone.Other amendments will provide fisheries officers with explicit powers to use reasonable force when requiring a boat to stop consistent with international law to apprehend foreign boats suspected of illegal fishing. Such force could include firing at or into a ship after appropriate warning shots have been fired and using devices to stop propulsion of the boat.The amendments to implement the Fish Stocks Agreement, contained in Schedule 2, will provide a framework to address the wider problem of unregulated and unreported fishing on the high seas.Unsustainable fishing on the high seas directly impacts the sustainability of stocks on which our domestic industry relies. In the Australian context, highly migratory fish stocks include stocks that migrate through our fishing zone such as southern bluefin tuna and other tuna and billfish species. Straddling stocks include stocks that straddle the boundary of our fishing zone and the high seas adjacent to it, such as orange roughy and in some cases the Patagonian toothfish. The value of these species to the Australian economy in 1999 is expected to be over $250 million.The Fish Stocks Agreement was drafted out of international concern for the sustainability of these straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. The objective of the Fish Stocks Agreement is to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of these fish stocks. Australia signed the Agreement when it was first opened for signature in 1995. The amendments being introduced will enable Australia to enjoy the rights under the Agreement and also meet its obligations.Australia is a world leader in sustainable fisheries management and manages its fisheries in accordance with contemporary fisheries management principles such as the precautionary principle and ecologically sustainable development. The Fish Stocks Agreement will strengthen the application of these principles, in particular by requiring stock specific reference points to be determined for highly migratory and straddling stocks. The bill will amend fisheries management legislation to require stock specific reference points to be set out in fisheries management plans.The Agreement provides a framework for strengthened cooperation between nations to manage and conserve these stocks by establishing regional fisheries management organisations or similar arrangements. The objectives of fisheries management legislation will be amended to reflect this international obligation.Ratification of the Fish Stocks Agreement by Australia and participation in regional fisheries organisations will help secure a share to fish resources both within and outside the Australian fishing zone. The regional fisheries organisations will be responsible for devising cooperative measures to conserve and manage the relevant regional stocks. The regime will be legally binding on members who will be required to abide by these measures or refrain from participating in the fisheries. Members will have rights to enforce these measures on the other parties to the Agreement. The amendments will enable Australian fisheries officers to board and inspect fishing vessels on the high seas to check compliance with regionally agreed management and conservation measures.Once the Agreement comes into force members will be required to take on flag state responsibility for vessels carrying its flag. This responsibility will involve regulating the activities of that vessel to ensure it operates in accordance with the principles of the Agreement and any regional conservation and management measures. The amendments will expand the application of fisheries management legislation to the high seas in order to fulfil this obligation. The amendments will require the Australian Fisheries Management Authority to authorise Australian vessels to fish on the high seas and impose and monitor the necessary conditions for compliance with any conservation and management measures.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour of the day.Committees967696769676Motion (by Senator O'Brien at the request of Senator Jacinta Collins) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee on the effectiveness of education and training programs for indigenous Australians be extended to 9 December 1999. 9676967609:38:009676Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—by leave—I seek leave to move business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3 in an amended form.Leave granted.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I move:(1) That the following matters be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 22 November 1999: (a) the economic theories, assumptions, calculations, projections, estimates and modelling which underpin the Government's proposals for business taxation reform, contained in the Treasurer's press release no. 58 of 21 September 1999 and in subsequent announcements; (b) whether the package is revenue neutral and, if not, how it could be made revenue neutral; (c) whether there are any uncertainties in the assumptions, costings or implementation of the measures which threaten revenue neutrality, including: (i) the realisation assumptions concerning capital gains tax, (ii) the potential for income to be converted to capital gains in order to minimise overall tax paid, and (iii) the timing or the collection and bring forward of revenue; (d) the effects of the package on future federal budget revenues, expenditures and surpluses, including a critical assessment of the economic and other assumptions underpinning the projections; (e) the estimated levels of revenue to be generated or foregone due to the proposed changes in business tax and capital gains tax and the basis for those estimates; (f) options for reducing tax avoidance and minimisation; (g) the further effective reduction in the research and development tax concession arising from the package; and (h) such other technical funding matters as the committee considers fall within the scope of this inquiry. (2) That the committee hold public hearings on such dates as are notified by the committee chair.Labor supports business tax reform but, because the GST has been imposed on Australian families, the revenue neutrality constraint imposed by the Treasurer must, in our view, be met. We in the opposition are concerned that the package as announced does not meet the revenue neutrality test, but we are also concerned to examine the assumptions and costings underlying the decisions that have been announced. There is, it has to be admitted, considerable public debate about some of the assumptions and these need, in our view, to be thoroughly examined.We have had a productive process of discussion and negotiation about our two motions with Senator Murray on behalf of the Democrats. We could not agree on the timetable proposed by Senator Murray. In our view, a reporting date of 3 November would have been extremely difficult. That would have arisen because as soon as we leave this place next week the opposition, and the nation for that matter, will be completely focused on the republic referendum. As a consequence of the time that would take, there has been an agreement to push the reporting date out to 22 November rather than 3 November which was originally set down in Senator Murray's motion. I have to emphasise the point that that is in recognition of the time that will be taken out because of the republic referendum. I thank Senator Murray for seeing that his original timetable was impossible in that context and acknowledge he has agreed to change the reporting date to accommodate that necessity.Labor's main beef in the reporting process is the fact that we do not have the full business tax package before us. In our submission, it is ludicrous of the government to expect the full package to be taken on trust. The government cannot be trusted to deliver a revenue neutral outcome. We call on the Treasurer to quickly release the balance of his package, the so-called phase 2, and let us get all the information before the committee.Let me be crystal clear on this final point. Labor thinks—and I think the Democrats agree—that if the second phase of the Treasurer's announcements are not delivered and subjected to full scrutiny by this committee, then a further inquiry process will be necessary.09:44:009677Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I think I should put a few brief remarks about this motion onto the record. The Democrats will accept and support the Labor amendments. We should all recognise that it was apparent that this very large issue which the government has brought before us would move to an inquiry. We were determined and very concerned that such an inquiry should initially restrict itself to funding issues—to the affordability of the package. It is only after that is resolved that you should really go into the question of the policy concerning it because, if it does not add up in monetary terms, then obviously it is at risk. If it does add up, the Labor Party and the Democrats have indicated a great deal of warmth to much of the package because of its benefits, so we want to keep the inquiry narrow. The terms of reference do that. At this stage, I will publicly argue that the inquiry should be kept on that very precise, professional and objective analysis.We envisage that the people who will be called to the inquiry will be principally those who have ability in number crunching and understanding these issues. I should make it clear on the record that we have discussed these matters with the Treasurer, and the Treasurer does not oppose in any way an inquiry into the funding and affordability of the package, although there has been some debate about whether it should be a references or a legislation committee. The issue at stake is that there would be a Labor chair on a references committee and a Liberal chair on a legislation committee. This is not about legislation; this is about a policy approach—a package of proposals. Labor has argued that it is a references approach, and that appears logical. Frankly, this thing can split three ways or it can end up as a unanimous report or it can be split two ways. We will see how that goes when it emerges.The Treasurer has indicated that he will be making some further announcements in November on the second stage. The extended date would allow an assessment of those if they were brought in, but if we do not have enough information by the end of this process, this should be considered as an interim report. Plainly, the Senate would be obliged to further review both funding and policy matters if they cannot get to the bottom of it through this process.My last comment is on the dates. I was very strong on an early date. Regrettably, that will not happen. The Labor Party have indicated—and I think correctly so—that for countless parliamentarians the republic is a real issue. People are tied up. There is a great deal of other work on at present—the ATO inquiry, the IR inquiry and numerous other Senate inquiries. For those reasons, Labor felt that a later reporting date would be appropriate, which is the next sitting date. If we sit earlier—and goodness knows what will happen; whether we decide to sit earlier or to sit later, I can see December being added on somehow—then we could consider moving the date forward. I indicate to the government, who are always anxious about getting their proposals up quickly and getting things under way, that in no sense should this inquiry be regarded as anything other than assisting the Senate in coming to a view on these proposals and assisting the proper and early advancement of the Ralph business proposals.09:50:009678Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—On behalf of the Australian Greens, I also support the inquiry. I am not quite so accommodating of the overall tax package as Senator Murray has indicated the other non-government parties may be. To put it simply, I do not know that we will have an opportunity to look at the cost neutrality when it comes to cutting services in this place. The one good thing about this inquiry is that there is an expectation that the government's package is not going to add up—that there will be a shortfall of some billions of dollars. If that were the case, I can only expect that that shortfall will be a burden one way or another on people who expect government services and who depend upon government services further down the line. I move:At the end of paragraph (1), add: (i) the extent and likely impact of the proposals for reform on the non-profit sector, including the cumulative impact with the ANTS package.As you know, Madam Acting Deputy President, there is already a lot of concern in the non-profit sector in the Australian community that, having been hit quite hard by the ANTS package—the GST package—there is going to be a further specific impact on the non-profit and charitable sector in Australia by the Ralph package, in particular through the alteration to the fringe benefits tax arrangements, upon which many charitable and non-profit organisations depend in this country.I think that impact ought to be looked at at this stage. I understand that the Democrats and the opposition simply want to look at the cost neutrality question. That is one of the reasons this inquiry can be done so quickly. There is a reference to the further effective reduction in the research and development tax concessions arising from the package. I think my amendment is not altogether out of spirit with that. It is very important that we look at the wider impact of the Ralph package and go on beyond the question of cost neutrality.Finally, I say this: there is a drift in this country towards the reduction of taxes to the wealthy to be matched by the reduction of services to the poor. I see that package in this light. I am not warm to it at all because I think it is giving the breaks to the already rich. I have sat through the last three years here in having billions of dollars cut from—WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—You sat for the last three years and you wasted your time.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—You may think it is a waste of time. But I think that is quite derogatory to the role of every senator in this place, Senator, because I put a lot of time in here. It is a privilege to be in this place and to represent people whose voice would otherwise not be heard in the democratic system. That is why I am on my feet right now. I may not have the numbers to get up this amendment, but I am making a very valid point. My point is that under this government we are serially seeing the advantages given to the already wealthy as against the poor. The gap between the haves and have-nots in this country will increase under the package. There is more involved than the cost neutrality to the exchequer. I would expect that this inquiry will be followed by an inquiry with far greater scope so that the community reaction from those people who are going to be hurt by the tax package or are going to get no advantage from it can also be gauged by the Senate.09:54:009679Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I am seeking clarification at this point as to whether Senator Brown's amendment to this motion has actually been formally put and we are speaking to it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—It has been moved but it has not been put. It will be put prior to Senator Cook's amendment.8HCHarris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS—Thank you. I would like to speak to Senator Brown's amendment and add to that. The impact of the GST on the non-profit sector is carried on to associations similar to the RACQ, the Shooters Party and ambulance services. All of these non-profit sectors are now being visited by the Australian Taxation Office and are being presented with various bills that these associations are being asked to pay at this point in time as a result of subscriptions that go past 1 July. The Australian Taxation Office has obviously already calculated the funds that these subscriptions would be exposed to. At a point in time when none of these associations have been able to make financial appropriations for this tax by way of extra levies on their members, they are now facing a bill from the Australian Taxation Office for a tax that technically does not even start until 1 July next year. Whether the government has been aware of it or not, this is a reality. The RACQ have reported in their last magazine that they are facing this impost. I believe that Senator Brown's amendment to look at the impacts of the GST on the non-profit sector are very well founded, and Pauline Hanson's One Nation supports it in this chamber.09:57:009679Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—It is clear from the debate in the chamber that the numbers are there for the motion that has been moved by Senator Cook and that this motion will go through. I would like to make a couple of points. Firstly, if there were to be an inquiry, it would be the very strong preference of the government to have an earlier reporting date rather than a later one. We can always argue whether things are possible or not. For the responsible management of the government's program in terms of providing certainty for the community, it is important that this matter be dealt with in as expeditious a way as possible. From the government's point of view, we would have preferred an earlier date, but clearly the numbers are there for the 22 November date. Secondly, I note Senator Murray's comments about the need for the inquiry to be constructive. It needs to avoid the excesses we have seen with previous inquiries, one of which I think was chaired by Senator Cook. It is important that we deal with the matters before the inquiry as quickly and efficiently as possible, so those comments from Senator Murray were particularly welcome.We will not be supporting the amendment that has been moved by Senator Brown. In relation to Senator Harris's comments, I would welcome the chance to have a chat with him. I did not hear all of his speech, but the remarks that I heard seemed to me to suggest that the ATO was levying some taxes. I think he may have been misinformed and I am happy to have a discussion with him. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Brown's ) be agreed to.10:04:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)2Brown, B. *Harris, L.49Allison, L. Bishop, T. M.Bourne, V. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, G.Campbell, I. G. Carr, K.Chapman, H. G. P. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Greig, B. A. Hutchins, S. P.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Ludwig, J. W. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Mason, B. J.McLucas, J. E. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Quirke, J. A. Reid, M. E.Ridgeway, A. D. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.Tambling, G. E. J. Tchen, T.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M.Woodley, J.Question so resolved in the negative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bills9680r793Billsr792Billsr7979680Bills received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ellison) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Bills read a first time.968010:08:009680Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I table revised explanatory memoranda relating to the bills and move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1999When the Government came to power in 1996, we acted quickly to implement our agenda to achieve significant microeconomic reform. That agenda has involved removing unnecessary red-tape from business, providing greater workplace flexibility, encouraging a direct relationship between employers and employees and providing the incentives necessary to encourage improved industry performance.As a key part of that agenda, the Government identified the need for major reform of public administration. Commitment to that agenda has seen the passage of new financial management legislation devolving responsibility to the agency; the introduction of more transparent presentation of the costs of government through the move to accrual budgeting; promotion of a service culture in the APS through the introduction of Government Client Service Charters; and the promotion of more flexible employment arrangements at the agency level under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (WR Act).The modernisation of the principal legislation regulating the Australian Public Service, the Public Service Act 1922, is a vital element of this public service reform agenda. In some ways it is the key. The current Act is over 75 years old and has been amended on a piecemeal basis more than a hundred times. It looks back to a bygone age rather than forward to the next century. The current Act is complex, prescriptive and out of date. It has acted like a straightjacket on the Australian Public Service (APS), stifling the creativity and innovation of those who work within the Service.The Public Service Bill, on the other hand, aims to modernise the APS's legislative framework and transform the APS management culture. The changes necessary to achieve this transformation are effected through this Bill. The changes provide a careful balance between devolved responsibility and improved accountability. They provide the means of freeing APS agencies from central controls and enable APS agencies to adopt employment arrangements that meet their particular needs. Importantly, this Bill complements earlier reforms that saw the simplification of APS awards and the broader adoption of agreement-making processes.In essence, the Bill recognises the distinctive character of public administration in a way that is absent from the current legislation and aims to put in place a framework for a high performance public service. The Bill does not prescribe process but, instead, ensures that Agency Heads are held accountable for their actions. It removes prescription and central control, and will enable the public service to meet market competition; to respond to pressures for change more effectively; and, to promote a stronger performance culture. It will bring public service employment arrangements into line with community standards and, at the same time, it will promote accountability by making managers responsible for the way they manage employment matters within their own agencies.The Government has already implemented a number of its reforms to public administration through administrative means. Under these reforms:. Agency Heads have greater authority and flexibility to effectively manage their staff;. new Public Service Values and a Code of Conduct for APS staff have been established through regulation;. public accountability has been increased and strengthened, an important element of this was the enhancement of the reporting powers of the Public Service Commissioner to present an annual State of the Service Report to the Parliament; and. protection for whistleblowers raising allegations of breaches of the Code of Conduct has been introduced.A number of these reforms were brought about by amendments to Public Service Regulations made under the current Act. While these changes represent a significant step in the Government's reform agenda, a new Bill is still essential because there are a number of key areas in the current legislation that are not amenable to simplification by administrative action. For example:. giving employment powers direct to Agency Heads;. placing in primary legislation a secure Parliament-endorsed legislative framework for an extended range of APS values, the new Code of Conduct and protection for whistleblowers;. simplifying the current complex appeals arrangements;. making changes to the current inflexible employment categories; and. removing compulsory age 65 retirement.Implementing broad-ranging and integrated reforms to the APS management structure requires significant legislative reform. Recognising this, the Government has continued to press for new legislation to replace the current Act. In developing the Bill we have, over time, sought the views of many of those who have a stake in public administration, including in particular, public servants themselves. Early in developing this legislation, and more recently, the Government also consulted with the public sector unions who agreed to many changes to the original proposals.The Government, having accepted in full or in part the recommendations contained in a report by the then Joint Committee of Public Accounts (JCPA), has incorporated changes in the Bill that give effect to those recommendations. The JCPA favoured the simplification, modernisation and the more accessible format of the Bill.The Government has also made a number of changes to the Bill in the context of seeking reasonable compromise and bipartisan support. The principal changes focus on supplementing the accountability and reporting requirements already enshrined in the Bill. Further, the changes include measures that:. expand the APS Values;. clarify the sanctions applicable to breaches of the Code of Conduct and the applicability of the Code to statutory office holders;. expand the responsibilities of the Merit Protection Commissioner;. increase the protections afforded to employees against reduction in their entitlements under an award, certified agreement or Australian Workplace Agreement;. extend the processes for the review of actions affecting employees; and. elaborate on the responsibilities of the Heads of Executive Agencies.The Government acknowledges that there has been some constructive consideration and negotiation on the issues and we have appreciated the positive approach taken by the Opposition.While the changes made to the Bill retain some elements of process and prescription, the Bill remains a significant advance on the present legislative framework in terms of content and language. It is in the interests of good government and effective public administration to achieve an employment framework that capitalises on the real potential of our public sector.Crucially, the Bill will give Agency Heads similar rights, duties and powers as their counterparts in the private sector. Agency Heads will have a greater capacity, and authority, to respond to the distinctive needs of their own organisations. This will promote the development of fair and flexible employment arrangements that will meet the particular needs of each individual workplace. Agency Heads will be better placed to provide more rewarding jobs for their staff; and to develop employment arrangements tailored to meet the expectations of clients. At the same time, the Bill ensures that the powers vested in Agency Heads are exercised appropriately by providing for enhanced parliamentary scrutiny and greater public accountability.The Bill protects the public interest of citizens and provides a fair balance between accountability and devolved management responsibility. It ensures that merit selection will remain a fundamental principle in selection decisions. Indeed, the Bill specifically prohibits patronage or favouritism in staffing, and prevents Ministers from involving themselves in staffing decisions relating to particular individuals. As recommended by the JCPA, the Bill also includes a definition of merit that takes account of suggestions made by the Women's Electoral Lobby and supported by the JCPA.The Government's clear aim is to assist Public Service agencies to move towards the goal of becoming high performing organisations. We cannot afford to lose the opportunity to develop a modern Public Service Act that will guide the APS into the next century and give it the tools to meet future challenges. Adherence to detailed prescription, rigid regulation and control will mean that we lose that opportunity.The Bill, by providing a comprehensive, and comprehensible, modern employment framework will encourage employment practices that complement and promote the operations of agencies. It will ensure that the new flexibilities for individual and enterprise agreements provided under the WR Act will be a hallmark of APS management. In this sense the Public Service Bill is a very significant piece of legislation. The Administrative reforms, which have already been implemented with the assistance of the Opposition and minor parties in the Senate, have gone a long way towards providing the environment necessary for the APS Agencies to enter the next century as high performing, innovative, and responsive organisations. It is my hope that we can now advance this legislation to allow the APS to achieve its full potential.I commend the Bill to the Senate.PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT (CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL) AMENDMENT BILL 1999The Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1999 deals with the consequential and transitional matters arising from the proposed repeal of the Public Service Act 1922 and its replacement by the legislation set out in the Public Service Bill 1999. With the establishment of the new legal framework for APS employees set out in the Public Service Bill, certain provisions will be necessary:. to enable the transition from the old to the new employment framework;. to validate actions and decisions taken under the former legislation; and. to make consequential amendments to the extensive range of legislation which incorporates references to the Public Service Act 1922. The transitional provisions fall into three broad areas.First, it is necessary to set in place conversion arrangements for those who work in the APS. With the removal of the concept of office for APS staff, and the creation of new employment categories, officers and employees covered by the existing Act are converted to employees in their corresponding agencies with their corresponding classifications. Fixed-term Secretaries of Departments under the current Act will become Secretaries of their corresponding Departments under the new Act. Similarly the person holding office as the Public Service Commissioner, and the person holding the office of Merit Protection Commissioner, will become the Public Service Commissioner and the Merit Protection Commissioner respectively under the new Act as if they had been appointed under the new Act.Second, as the Public Service Bill 1999 is legislation that is primarily principles-based, there are some conditions covered by the current Act that require transitional arrangements because they will no longer be regulated in the same way.The most important of these are the arrangements governing the rights of return of staff who have left the APS to take up non-APS Commonwealth employment. The current, very complex, legislative provisions, under Part IV of the present Act, represent a considerable liability for the APS. They will be replaced, subject to appropriate transitional arrangements, with a simpler model under which Agency Heads will have the discretion to grant unpaid leave to employees to take up such employment where this is in the interest of the APS. In instances where a person seeks to leave an agency to take up an appointment to a Commonwealth statutory office, employment under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 or employment under the Governor-General Act 1974, Agency Heads must grant unpaid leave to that person.There will also be appropriate arrangements for the Parliamentary Departments pending the development of their own legislation.Third, there is a need to provide for the continuation of processes already set in train. Action may have commenced under the current Act or the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984 that will not be completed by the time the new Act is proclaimed.I refer to matters such as appointments, promotions, suspensions, misconduct processes, transfers and advancements, as well as to appeals, grievances and other reviews of employment decisions. To enable action to be completed, regulations will be made to ensure the continuation of those processes after the new Act is proclaimed. The validation of actions and decisions taken under the current Act will be, largely, dealt with in regulations.With respect to the consequential amendments, the Acts specified in Schedule 1 to this Bill will be amended or repealed as set out in that Schedule. The amendments can be divided into the following categories:. changes in the current provisions relating to staffing to reflect the new employment framework;. removal of obsolete references to the Public Service Board;. consequential amendments to the superannuation legislation, but without any changes in the operation of the schemes;. changes to the role of the Remuneration Tribunal in relation to the remuneration and allowances for Secretaries;. removal of cross-references to reciprocal mobility which will now be dealt with by directions by the Public Service Commissioner;. removal of references to the old mobility arrangements set out in Part IV of the current Act;. standard translations for common terms in the current Act; and. other miscellaneous amendments to ensure appropriate links to the new APS employment framework.The Bill also amends the current arrangement of linking Members of Parliament salaries to the salaries of Senior Executive Service officers in the APS in recognition of the devolved salary setting arrangements now applying in the APS.Under the new arrangements the annual salary of Members of Parliament will now be linked to either the minimum annual rate of salary payable to an SES employee with a classification of SES Band 2, or some other reference salary within the determining jurisdiction of the Remuneration Tribunal.Subject to any special requirements in relation to particular consequential amendments, this Bill will commence on the same day as the Public Service Act 1999. Where this Bill amends an Act which has not yet commenced, the amending provision in the Schedule to this Bill will commence immediately after the commencement of that other Act. Where this Bill amends a section in another Act and the section has not yet commenced, the amending provision in the Schedule to this Bill will commence immediately after the commencement of that amended section.The proposed legislation has no financial impact.Collectively the arrangements proposed in this Bill will provide the necessary certainty and continuity of administrative and management arrangements for the Australian Public Service. They will enable an orderly devolution of employment powers in the APS and a transition to a less regulated workplace.I commend the Bill to the Senate.PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE BILL 1999The bill which I have just presented provides, for the first time, for the establishment of a separate Parliamentary Service, independent of the Australian Public Service but drawing on the same professional values.The proposed Parliamentary Service will consist of the staff required to support the operations of the Houses of the Australian Parliament. The staff are currently employed under the generic Public Service Act 1922, the same act which provides support for the executive arm of government.Establishing a separate Parliamentary Service with its own legislation will reinforce the principle that the legislative branch of government is separate from the executive branch and that its staff are responsible to the Houses of the Australian Parliament rather than to the government of the day.The underlying philosophy and framework of these two services, however, will be consistent. This will foster mobility between them so that both can learn from each other.The Parliamentary Service Bill 1999 follows as far as possible the philosophy, content and structure of the Public Service Bill 1999. That bill changes significantly the structure and management of Public Service employment. It is less prescriptive and centralised and places responsibility and accountability more squarely with the operating agencies. To enable this, it also provides greater flexibility to those agencies.To this end, the Parliamentary Service Bill provides for a Parliamentary Service code of conduct and for Parliamentary Service values. These are similar in philosophy to the code of conduct and values in the Public Service Bill 1999, but differ in the recognition of the Parliamentary Service's accountability to the Houses of the Parliament rather than to the executive government. A key value common to both bills is that employment decisions must be based on merit.The Parliamentary Service Bill provides for the creation of a new office of Parliamentary Service Commissioner with a role similar to that of the Public Service Commissioner. The Parliamentary Service Commissioner will advise the Presiding Officers on management practices and policies of the Parliamentary Service and, if requested by the relevant Presiding Officer, investigate and report on specific issues. While the bill provides that the Parliamentary Service Commissioner is to be appointed separately and independently by the Presiding Officers, it is expected that, in the normal course of events, the same person will be both Parliamentary Service Commissioner and Public Service Commissioner. This is provided for in the bill and will assist in ensuring general compatibility and consistency between the two services. However, the bill specifically provides that the Parliamentary Service Commissioner cannot be subject to direction by the executive government in relation to the Parliamentary Service.Under this bill the Presiding Officers will, in broad terms, have the same employment powers as those proposed for ministers under the Public Service Bill 1999. Those powers will be exercised after considering advice from the Parliamentary Service Commissioner.The Presiding Officers will have the power to give secretaries of parliamentary departments, including the Clerks of the Houses, general directions relating to the leadership and management of the Parliamentary Service. However, secretaries may not be directed in the exercise of their powers in respect of specific individuals in the parliamentary departments.Consistent with the need to preserve the independence of the Clerks as impartial advisers, the Clerks are not to be subject to direction from the Presiding Officers in relation to advice provided to either House, members and senators or parliamentary committees. Secretaries of the parliamentary departments are to have the same employment powers as those proposed for secretaries of executive departments under the Public Service Bill 1999.The Parliamentary Service Bill provides for the appointment, tenure and termination of secretaries of parliamentary departments. There are transitional arrangements to ensure the continuation in office of the current secretaries. Tenure for the Clerks of the Houses will be of one, non-renewable, 10-year period. The bill stipulates the conditions for earlier termination of a Clerk's appointment by the relevant House.Other secretaries will be appointed for five years. These appointments will be renewable. Termination arrangements for these positions will be similar to those proposed for secretaries of executive departments under the Public Service Bill 1999.As indicated earlier, the bill provides for unfettered mobility, without loss of accrued entitlements, between the Parliamentary Service and the Public Service.The bill incorporates amendments made in the House of Representatives to make it consistent with the Public Service Bill 1999 following amendments to that bill in the House. The amendments made 7 principal changes to the bill, as first introduced. They are to, firstly, introduce four new Parliamentary Service values to emphasise equity in employment, access to employment and the career-service nature of the Parliamentary Service and underpin a framework for review of employment related decisions; secondly, to revise the wording of some Parliamentary Service values to highlight the diversity of the Australian community, to stress that accountability must be open and to recognise the contributions of Parliamentary Service employees; thirdly, give a greater role to the Parliamentary Service Commissioner in relation to advice to the Presiding Officers flowing from values and in relation to directions establishing processes for investigation of breaches of the Parliamentary Service code of conduct; fourthly, require that departmental and commissioners' annual reports conform with guidelines issued by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit; fifthly, create an advisory role for the Remuneration Tribunal in relation to salaries for statutory office holders and departmental heads; sixthly, require that a range of Presiding Officers directions, principally remuneration related, be tabled and published in the Gazette; and, seventhly, create three categories of Parliamentary Service employment, namely, ongoing, fixed term and intermittent. There were also some minor and consequential amendments made.In conclusion, I refer to the first object of this bill, that is, to establish a non-partisan Parliamentary Service which is efficient and effective in serving the Houses of the Parliament. The bill provides an employment framework consistent with that proposed for the Public Service generally. It emphasises professionalism and cost effectiveness in the provision of services.This bill provides the Houses with a set of arrangements which will continue to attract and provide careers for those staff able to deliver the high standard of service which the Houses currently enjoy.I commend the bill to the Senate.10:09:009684Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—The bills that we have before us today represent the outcome of over five months of intensive negotiations between the government and the opposition. The bills are very different from those the Senate has considered on two previous occasions: in November 1997 and in March and April 1998. They incorporate 52 amendments in the case of the Public Service Bill 1999 , 10 amendments in the case of the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1999 and 43 amendments to the Parliamentary Service Bill 1999 .To appreciate the importance of these changes to the government's original proposals, one has only to read through the supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Public Service Bill, which the government tabled in the House of Representatives when moving its 52 amendments. There you will find the amendments described as expanding the APS values, enhancing accountability and reporting requirements, increasing the protections afforded to employees against reduction in their entitlements, extending the processes for review of employment decisions, elaborating on the responsibility of agency heads, expanding the responsibilities of the Merit Protection Commissioner and clarifying the sanctions applicable to breaches of the code of conduct and its applicability to statutory office holders.You will find in the supplementary explanatory memorandum such important changes to the bills as a commitment to a career based Public Service and to ongoing employment as the norm, an enunciation of the principles of Public Service employment, the removal of a provision which denied SES employees access to the unfair dismissals provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996, a requirement for full transparency in determining the remuneration for agency heads and an explicit acknowledgment of the recent rulings on procedural fairness in the Barratt case.As I have said on many occasions, the opposition had very serious concerns with the government's original proposals. Our assessment was that these would have led to a Public Service which would have been too susceptible to pressures from the government of the day and less willing to offer critical advice. If implemented unchanged, the bills' provisions would have undermined the independence, the professionalism and the efficiency of the Public Service. We concluded that this was not a Public Service that Australians would want and it was not a Public Service that a Labor government would want.The original bill went too far in enhancing the powers of Public Service agency heads and converting their agencies into independent entities with separate procedures and employment conditions. It did not go far enough in protecting the independence and professionalism of the Public Service and the working conditions of public servants. The bill would have placed Public Service agency heads on a similar footing to private sector employers. They would have been able to negotiate cosy deals on salary and conditions with their ministers free from public scrutiny, determine the salary and conditions of their employees and, of course, hire and fire as they pleased.While the bill proscribed patronage and favouritism, its provisions would have actually encouraged it. What else could be expected from a system which facilitated political appointments at the top with the lure of special deals, making the Senior Executive Service dependent on patronage for survival and making public servants heavily dependent on their bosses for their salary and work conditions while at the same time restricting their rights of appeal?The government's bill would have taken devolution of powers to individual departments and agencies to unacceptable levels. It simply would not have made sense for agencies to be reinventing the wheel in areas of commonality such as, for example, application of the values and code of conduct, and procedures for dealing with breaches and for the engagement and the termination of SES employees.On the two previous occasions that the Senate debated the Public Service Bill it made, coincidentally, 52 amendments to remedy these defects. On those two occasions it suited the government to ignore the merit of the amendments. The government was more interested in establishing a double dissolution trigger than in making the necessary changes to achieve the passage of its legislation.The government reintroduced its bill in March this year, but on this occasion it rejected the all or nothing approach and it sought negotiations with the opposition in an effort to satisfy our concerns and ensure passage of the bill. We welcomed that changed approach, and we appreciate the spirit in which the government has conducted negotia tions with the opposition. They have been lengthy, they have been complex, but they have resulted in a much improved piece of legislation which can provide an appropriate legislative basis for the Public Service under governments of any political persuasion. That is a vitally important consideration. After all, the Public Service is one of the core institutions in our system of government. Its strengths are its stability, its continuity and its capacity to be a repository of knowledge on matters of public administration on which governments can draw. It should not be subject to radical transformation simply to suit the ideology or the political philosophy of the government of the day. The last thing that we would want to do on regaining government—as inevitably we will—would be to introduce another public service reform bill to undo the reforms of our predecessor. In our view this would be inimical to the proper functioning of the Public Service.The legislative framework for the Public Service must preserve and enhance its strengths, and this can only be achieved with a framework which is broadly acceptable to both of the major political groupings—the government of the day and the alternative government. Naturally, the framework must also be acceptable to the parliament and to the public, both of whom the Public Service also serves. With one important caveat, which I will deal with in good time, I believe we have such a framework in the bills which are now before us. This is the culmination of a process that the previous Labor government set in train to simplify and modernise the Public Service Act. We recognised that that act, which dates back to 1922, had over the years become impossibly complex and cumbersome.We commissioned a review by Ron McLeod, the current Ombudsman, who was then Deputy Secretary of the Department of Defence. Many of the issues identified, and recommendations made, in the McLeod report, which was completed in December 1994, are reflected in the bills which are now before us. It is appropriate that we recognise Ron McLeod's seminal contribution to the development of this legislative package.I will be frank and admit we did not achieve all we set out to achieve when we accepted Dr Kemp's invitation to work through our concerns about the government's original bill. Those negotiations were based on the 74 amendments we had moved in the earlier Senate debates. Some of those amendments we agreed to withdraw in the light of changes which the government had introduced by administrative means; some we sacrificed in the interests of gaining government concessions on more important issues; on others, we reached mutually acceptable compromises. Overall, we are satisfied with the end result. We believe the government has made very important concessions which will be of great benefit to the Public Service and to the quality of our system of government.Let me run through some of those key concessions. In relation to the powers of secretaries, those concessions include the insertion of a clause setting out their responsibilities, including that of assisting the minister to fulfil his or her accountability obligations to parliament; backing away from secret deals on salary and conditions by agreeing to a requirement that ministers seek advice from the Remuneration Tribunal and that determinations on remuneration be open to public scrutiny; making secretaries subject to sanctions for breaches of the code of conduct, in the same way as employees; and preventing secretaries from making determinations which could reduce benefits to employees under an award, certified agreement or AWA.The government agreed to measures to enhance the independence of SES employees. In addition to removing an earlier clause which denied SES employees access to the unfair dismissals provisions of the Workplace Relations Act, there is now a requirement that the Public Service Commissioner certify that termination of an SES officer is in accordance with published procedures and in the best interests of the APS.The government has agreed to maintain the office of Merit Protection Commissioner and to provide it with the functions, powers and protections which are necessary for the commissioner to be independent and effective. These powers will be provided through the act and regulations. There are concessions which redress the excessive devolution of powers to individual agencies by requiring the Public Service Commissioner to issue directions on all of the values, breaches of the code of conduct and engagement and termination of SES employees. Other changes will ensure that executive agencies which may be established under the act are accountable to the government, the parliament and the public in the same way as departments.Many of the changes which we have negotiated with the government are designed to protect the interests of those who constitute the Public Service—the APS employees. A fair system of review of employment decisions will be maintained and important additional values are included. These ensure that the APS will remain a career based service and that employees are consulted and encouraged to have input on matters that affect their workplace. Ongoing employment will continue to be the norm in the APS, and conditions of employment will not be subject to change outside limited exceptional circumstances other than by negotiation and agreement through an award, certified agreement or AWA.In relation to the provisions concerning termination of secretaries, there have, of course, been important developments in case law since the bill was drafted and last debated. I refer to judgments of the Federal Court in relation to the actions taken by Mr Paul Barratt, the former Secretary to the Department of Defence. The court upheld Mr Barratt's complaint that he had been denied procedural fairness in the manner in which the government had sacked him. The court ruled that Mr Barratt was entitled to be informed of the government's reasons for dispensing with his services and was also entitled to an opportunity to respond.The opposition had initially proposed a different method of affording secretaries who were being terminated a greater degree of procedural fairness. We proposed that a report to the Prime Minister on the termination of a secretary be signed not only by the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet but also by the Public Service Com missioner. In the earlier Senate debate we attempted to amend the bill to this end, but we were not successful. In the interim, the Federal Court has set out very specific requirements for procedural fairness in the case of termination of secretaries. We pressed the government in our negotiations on this issue to reflect the outcome of the Barratt case in its bill. We consider that the inclusion of the reference to that judgment in clause 59(1) constitutes adequate acknowledgment of that case and the obligations it places on governments.There were three matters that proved to be particularly contentious in our negotiations with the government. On each of these matters we reached agreement with the government on the wording to go into the bill and agreed to continue our negotiations in the context of drafting regulations. This facilitated progress on the passage of the bill through parliament and allowed further time to attempt to resolve our differences. The three matters are the details of the processes to be followed for the review of employment decisions, the handling of machinery of government changes and the circumstances in which APS employees can be employed on a non-ongoing basis. They are dealt with in clauses 22, 33 and 72 of the bill.We have reached agreement with the government on the basic structure of the new processes which will apply to review of employment decisions. The current system of tripartite committees will continue to be used for appeals against promotions decisions. The recommendations of these committees will continue to be binding on agency heads. Appeals against other employment decisions will be considered in the first instance by the relevant agency head. If the matter is not resolved satisfactorily, the appellant may take it to the Merit Protection Commissioner. The commissioner's recommendations on these matters will not be binding on the agency head but, if the commissioner is not satisfied with the action taken by the agency head, this can be reported to the agency minister, the Prime Minister or the parliament. We believe this will constitute a strong incentive for secretaries to resolve grievances at the agency level. I take this opportunity to suggest to the government that its yet unveiled system of performance appraisal for secretaries should take into account the success rate of secretaries in resolving grievances in their agencies. The government has prepared a preliminary draft of regulations to flesh out the details of this agreed schema.The second of the three most intractable problems in our negotiations was how to protect the employment conditions of public servants who are affected by machinery of government changes. These changes pose increasingly difficult challenges for governments in the `brave new world' of the Howard government's industrial relations system. With agency bargaining and the increasing use of AWAs, the standard Public Service classification structures and conditions of employment are disappearing. As a consequence, if a group of employees is moved from one agency to another as a result of a machinery of government change, it is more likely than not that they will have different employment conditions from their colleagues in the new workplace. We have been concerned to ensure that machinery of government changes cannot be used as a means of reducing the remuneration or other conditions of employment of employees who are affected by these administrative changes. Clause 72 of the bill, as it has been amended by the government in the House of Representatives, goes some way to achieving this objective. The regulations which we have negotiated with the government go further. They are not perfect, but we are satisfied that they offer the best possible level of protection to APS employees who are affected by these changes.The final, and most difficult and important, issue of the three intractable issues has been the drafting of regulations concerning the engagement of APS employees. The government has accepted ongoing employment as the norm and has agreed to specify in the bill the categories of employment which will be available in the APS.Mr Acting Deputy President, at this stage I seek leave to speak for a further five minutes. It might save considerable time in the committee stage if I dealt with this third issue in my speech on the second reading.Leave granted.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I thank the Senate. This is an important issue. In relation to this issue, we agreed that the circumstances in which persons may be engaged in these categories would be set out in regulations. We attach great importance to getting this right. We will not be a party to the casualisation of the Public Service, nor to arrangements which will lead to a proliferation of temporary employees.We cannot agree with the government's current proposal to allow temporary employment or employment for a specified term for periods of up to three years. We consider this would be seriously detrimental to the professionalism and morale of the Public Service and the job security of public servants. Obviously this is a matter that we will deal with in the committee stage of this bill, but I would like in my speech on the second reading to foreshadow that, given the importance we attach to this issue and the fact that we have not been able to reach agreement with the government, the opposition will be moving an amendment to limit engagement of APS employees for a specified term or for the duration of a specified task to circumstances prescribed by regulation. This would give parliament the opportunity to scrutinise whatever proposals the government might bring forward. I commend this approach to the Senate and to the government.The regulations concerning machinery of government changes and categories of employment take us into the realm of complex industrial matters—matters which are of vital concern to the public sector unions, in particular the CPSU. We have kept the CPSU informed of the progress of our negotiations that have taken place with the government and we have made every effort to ensure that their concerns have been reflected in the negotiations we have had. We are pleased that the government agreed to involve the CPSU directly in the process of finalising these two sets of regulations and we commend this approach to the government in tackling change in other areas of industrial relations. We believe that the CPSU's involvement in this process has led to a much more positive outcome for those who constitute the Public Service—the APS employees. I would like to take a moment just to acknowledge particularly the efforts of Mr Doug Lilly, the Assistant National Secretary of the CPSU, on behalf of his union membership.We are also dealing today with the Parliamentary Service Bill 1999 . We are pleased the Presiding Officers have agreed to amendments to that bill which affect the outcome of our negotiations with the government on the amendments to the Public Service Bill. Those amendments were made in the House of Representatives and are incorporated in the bill we have before us. I take this opportunity to foreshadow that the opposition will be moving four additional amendments to this bill.Three of these amendments I have already drawn to the attention of the minor parties and Independents and have had circulated in the chamber. Of course, these go to ensuring the greatest possible congruence between the Parliamentary Service and the Public Service and preserving the redeployment options that excess parliamentary officers have under the current legislative regime. These three amendments were supported by the Senate on the previous occasions that this bill was debated in this chamber. The fourth amendment parallels the amendment on temporary employment which we will be moving to the Public Service Bill and which I referred to a few moments ago.In conclusion, let me say that I want to acknowledge the government's efforts and in particular those of Dr Kemp, the minister responsible for Public Service matters, for taking what might have been a difficult step in involving the opposition in the necessarily lengthy, complex and tedious process of working through our objections to their original proposals. I hope the amendments the opposition will be moving will enjoy the support of the Senate, and I am confident that the bill as amended will provide a sound and much improved framework for the Public Service and Parliamentary Service for many years to come.Of course, these sorts of negotiations do not just happen. They require enormous effort on the part of all those involved. Much of this effort has gone on in this building, in Parliament House. The government has the advantage of Mr Clayton Ford, who is an adviser to the minister and who has great support in the bureaucracy—and we acknowledge that. In the case of the opposition, George Thompson, my senior adviser, has conducted much of these negotiations without that level of support. I appreciate that and the opposition appreciates the efforts of all. I particularly wanted to acknowledge the efforts of all staff in this and thank particularly George Thompson on behalf of the opposition for all those efforts above and beyond the call of duty.10:34:009689Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—The Democrats regarded the Public Service Bill 1997 as fundamentally flawed because it undermined the integrity and the independence of the Australian Public Service. The Democrats do not believe that the Public Service should be a creature of the government under the direct political control of the relevant minister. We believe that it is in the national interest to have a public service capable of providing free and frank advice to the government of the day, which assumes and upholds the highest possible ethical and professional standards and which does not become a party to grubby political point scoring.We believe that the Public Service should uphold and implement the decisions of the government of the day in a way which is professional, service orientated and fully accountable to the public it services. The Public Service Bill and the Parliamentary Service Bill, as originally drafted by the government, did not achieve this. The Democrats opposed those bills as they would have removed service wide standards and protections and increased the politicisation of the Public Service. However, the Democrats have never opposed genuine reform of the legislative framework for the Public Service. We recognise that the existing act is overly complex and does not lend itself to develop ing a responsive and effective public service for the future.We have always supported changes to the legislative framework which would enable the Public Service to provide a higher quality service to the government and to the Australian people. The Democrats want to see public sector reform that focuses on quality of services provided and improving accountability to the public. This is why the Democrats worked within the framework of these bills in their last incarnation, moving and supporting a range of amendments to ensure that the main bill would meet the minimum standard for public sector reform. The 74 amendments passed by the Senate and rejected by the House of Representatives prior to the bill being reintroduced in its current format addressed what the Senate felt were serious flaws in the original bill. I am pleased that almost all of the issues raised in these 74 amendments have now been addressed and that many of them are incorporated in the version of the bill before the Senate today.It is important to remember that this government has a poor record on the Public Service. It has consistently shown it has no commitment to a strong and independent public service. In fact it has tried at every turn, it seems to the Democrats, to weaken and undermine the capacity of the Public Service to provide high quality and independent advice. It has shown no respect for the expertise of the public servants who provide a high quality service to the government of the day and who provide vital support to government ministers in their work.It is also important to remember that the government has comprehensively broken all of its election promises in respect of the Public Service. It promised that there would be no slashing of jobs beyond the 2,500 needed to pay election promises, and instead we have seen 27,000 Public Service jobs go. It promised public servants that their superannuation entitlements were safe, and then it proposed to close down that superannuation scheme and is in fact acting already on that proposal. It promised that the Public Service would remain a source of non-partisan, loyal and objective professional advice to the government, and then tried to get a bill through the parliament that would have seriously undermined the capacity of the Public Service to achieve these aims.In the light of the government's past record on the Public Service, I have been pleasantly surprised by its willingness to work through the issues which were raised in the Senate in 1998 and address many of these through amendments to the bills. I would like to congratulate both the government and the opposition for working together constructively on these bills and generally achieving an acceptable outcome for public sector reform.I recognise that many of the issues raised in the Senate's amendments last year have been addressed through other means since that time. However, the bulk of them have been picked up by the government's amendments to the bills in the House and the result is responsible bills that will provide the Public Service with a legislative framework for the future.The Democrats will be supporting the bills and would like to again congratulate the government and the opposition for working constructively to achieve a generally positive outcome for public sector reform. You will not find in the debate today any complaints from the Democrats about deals done behind closed doors. We recognise that this is a legitimate and proper process, and we are pleased to see that this is the outcome.10:39:009690Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—I rise to speak on these bills this morning because the public sector is one of the key institutions of government, serving the people of Australia and governments of either political persuasion. The Public Service Bill 1999 and the cognate bills, the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1999 and the Parliamentary Service Bill 1999 , are being put before the Senate for the third time in two years.These bills seek to bring reform to the Public Service, yet improvements to the legislation passed in the Senate have been rejected by the government in the House on two previous occasions. The bill originated in the days of the former Keating Labor govern ment, following an acceptance of a majority of the recommendations of the McLeod review. However, the 1996 federal election was called before the bill was introduced.Following that election, the minister for industrial, now workplace, relations, Peter Reith, examined the McLeod review, and following the release of a discussion paper and a roundtable inquiry by the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee, the bills were introduced to the House on the 26 June 1997. The bills went through the two houses of our parliament, and the Public Service Bill 1999 left the Senate with 52 amendments. These amendments were rejected by the government in the House and the bills were laid aside.Rather than adopt the recommendations of the Senate or make changes to the administration of the APS through the normal transparent channels, changes to regulations were utilised to make a number of important alterations. These included, amongst others, giving more powers to departmental secretaries and agency heads in relation to the management of staff. These changes aroused the concern of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. Even the chair of that committee, the former senator Bill O'Chee, gave notice of his intention to seek disallowance of the regulations, but he was placated by the minister and all was quiet again. But not for long. The bills were reintroduced, principally in their original form, on 5 March 1998. Again the bills were passed by the House and introduced into the Senate. Once there, the bills were passed after receiving 95 amendments. Yet again Dr Kemp rejected the amendments and laid the bills aside, thus presenting the government with a double dissolution election trigger.The Howard government's agenda has always been to have this legislation as an ace up its sleeve. It drafted the original legislation knowing that it would not be supported by the Labor Party as the bills gave too much power and discretion to departmental and agency heads, and they weakened the job security and professional standards of Public Service employees. With the political climate milder this year than last, the Labor opposition hoped that the government would be more amenable to amendments when the bills were again introduced into the House of Representatives in March. None of the Senate's earlier recommendations had been incorporated.These bills still went too far in enhancing the powers of departmental secretaries and fragmenting the Public Service, and did not go far enough in protecting the independence and professionalism of the service and the employment conditions of public servants. Luckily, upon the passage of this package of bills through the House of Representatives on 27 September 1999, the government did agree to 52 amendments of the 74 originally proposed by the ALP. These 52 amendments resulted in almost half of the 78 clauses in the bill being amended—an admission that the original bill was severely flawed.The government acknowledged the need for a more bipartisan approach, resulting in a piece of legislation that should provide a satisfactory legislative framework for the Public Service for many years to come under governments of either major political persuasion. The key amendments agreed to include: (1) strengthening APS values and giving the Public Service Commissioner the power to issue directions on these and to evaluate the extent to which agencies uphold the values; (2) recognising that the APS is a career based service to enhance the cohesion of Australia's democratic system of government; (3) recognising that the usual basis of employment is as a permanent employee; (4) preserving existing promotion appeals rights; (5) providing for a genuinely independent and full-time Merit Protection Commissioner with functions and powers specified in the act; (6) ensuring consistency across the APS in handling allegations of misconduct and limiting the sanctions that can be imposed; (7) ensuring that a determination made by an agency head has no effect to the extent that it would reduce the benefit to an employee of any individual term of condition applicable to the employee under an award, certified agreement or AWA; (8) providing ministerial determinations which could override awards, certified agreements and AWAs that will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances and are disallowable instruments; (9) placing constraints on management reducing the classification of employees without their consent; (10) strengthening protection against unfair dismissal; (11) ensuring that prime ministerial directions to agency heads about APS management are published in the Gazette; (12) retaining access to the unfair dismissal provisions of the Workplace Relations Act for senior executive service employees; (13) ensuring a greater role for the PSC in the management of the SES; (14) providing greater transparency in setting the salaries of agency heads; and (15) including a fuller statement on the responsibilities of agency heads, which includes an acknowledgment of the agency minister's accountability obligations to the parliament.The Howard government has been systematically undermining the position of the Australian Public Service ever since it came to office. Apart from slashing vital jobs from the public sector, departments and agencies have been given considerable scope by the government to use certified agreements and AWAs to override parts of the Public Service Act 1922, effectively undermining the security of Public Service employees. The Workplace Relations Act 1996 and Workplace Relations Regulations 1996 allow APS employers to override prescribed provisions of the Public Service Act 1922—relating principally to dismissal and retirement of people from the APS—in their certified agreements and Australian Workplace Agreements. These and other procedures leave too much open for personal bias and interpretation by departmental and agency heads to the detriment of APS employees.The job is not over. Following the changes made in the House of Representatives, Labor outlined three key changes that we sought before we could agree on these bills. These three changes related to (1) the protection of workers' entitlements following machinery of government changes, (2) the processes for the review of employment decisions and (3) the types of employment available in the Public Service, particularly for temporary employees. Negotiations on these issues have been going on over the past few days. We have been concerned that machinery of government changes could be used as a means of reducing the remuneration and other conditions of APS employees. The amendments agreed to by the government are not perfect, but offer adequate protection to workers. Promotion appeals will be retained by a three-member review committee and the decision of this committee will be binding. The final details are still to be nutted out in regulations, but we are satisfied with this outcome.The major sticking point with the government, however, has been Labor's objection to extending the use of temporary employment, as it will do nothing to improve the job security and, more importantly, the morale of APS employees, which at this point in history is at an all-time low. Unfortunately, the government has not agreed with our proposals and, as Senator Faulkner has outlined, we will be moving an amendment to limit temporary employment to 12 months, to 18 months in some circumstances and to three years in exceptional circumstances to be declared by a Public Service Commissioner's direction, which will be a disallowable instrument.The government still proposes to employ people for up to six years for a supposed temporary task. Departments and agencies should not be absolved of responsibility for their employees. APS employees deserve, at a minimum, security of their employment tenure. We remain concerned that the government will push to casualise or make temporary the employment of many APS employees. A recent survey of CPSU members discovered that 50 per cent of APS employees believed that their job was less secure than it was 12 months ago. Currently, any temporary employee who has 12 months continuous employment becomes an ongoing employee. We believe that our amendment will make this bill fairer and more reasonable and will offer more to the Public Service and its employees. We hope that the Democrats and Independents will agree with us on this one outstanding issue and support it.The forgotten part of this debate deals with the Parliamentary Service Bill 1999 . The bill has much the same origin as the Public Service Bill 1999 and establishes a separate Parliamentary Service. While many of the provisions of this bill are the same or similar to the Public Service bills, the main points of interest relate to the appointment of the Clerk of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the mobility of staff employed by the parliamentary departments—SES and non-SES staff—to allow for the movement of staff between the Public Service and parliamentary departments without a break in continuity and the right of return for employees working in non-APS Commonwealth agencies, and the creation of the position of the Parliamentary Service Commissioner, who may be different to the Public Service Commissioner. As Senator Faulkner has detailed, the Presiding Officers have agreed to amendments to this bill. Three additional amendments, which were supported by the Senate on each occasion the bill was debated previously, will also be moved.This package of bills covers a range of matters, but there are also other significant matters that are subject to reference by this parliament that have not been covered. These include important issues, such as the evolving changes in the nature of the SES, including chief executive officers, as a result of the devolution of responsibility for staffing matters to individual agencies, such as selection, tenure and independence, remuneration including relativities, mobility and career development; the impact of agency bargaining in contributing to the development of a more efficient, productive and independent Australian Public Service, accountable to the Australian parliament; and the extent to which performance pay is being incorporated into agreements negotiated by individual agencies, the disparity between agency agreements in performance pay and the impact of such agreements on agency performance, accountability and transparency.All these issues directly reflect on the levels of morale within the service and the quality of the service. If we want to improve these factors, the first step is to create a remuneration structure that is fair and equitable and that works objectively.In conclusion, what we have now is a more balanced, fair and equitable package of bills, but there are still many outstanding issues relating to the Australian Public Service that need to be resolved. At the end of the day, we need to be able to create a public service that is both unified and has people with the morale to get the job done. For this reason, it is vital that we continue to work towards a fair outcome that these amendments, in part, will provide.10:53:009693Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—At the outset, I thank senators, both from the opposition and from the Democrats, for their contributions. As Senator Faulkner outlined, this bill is the product of lengthy, complex and intense negotiations. I say on behalf of the government that it acknowledges and appreciates the spirit in which the opposition has approached those negotiations. During the course of those consultations and negotiations, the government has dealt with not only the opposition but also the CPSU and public servants themselves. It has been a compromise. As mentioned by Senator Faulkner, the opposition has compromised on various aspects, as has the government. I also acknowledge Senator Allison's contribution.We believe this is a responsible bill, as stated by Senator Allison. I will not reiterate the points made in the second reading speech, suffice to say that this bill is a great reform of the Australian Public Service. We are reforming a piece of legislation that has been in existence for in excess of 70 years and which, I think, has been amended on some 100 occasions. There is, of course, the one point of the opposition's amendment, which we will deal with in the committee stage, but I commend these bills to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time.9693PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1999The bill.10:55:009693Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—The opposition has an amendment in relation to ongoing APS employees, which I think is the only amendment we have to the Public Service Bill and which has been circulated. I move:Clause 22, page 14 (line 26) to page 15 (line 2), omit subclauses (4) and (5), substitute: (4) A person may be engaged as mentioned in paragraph (2)(b) only in circumstances prescribed by the regulations. (4A) The regulations may limit the circumstances in which persons may be engaged as mentioned in paragraph (2)(c). (5) An engagement for a specified term may be extended in circumstances prescribed by the regulations.The opposition has consistently stated that our support for the bills in the Senate was contingent on our satisfaction with the regulations in relation to types of employment, machinery of government changes and review processes. We have reached agreement in relation to machinery of government and review processes. But, as I indicated in my second reading contribution, the government has failed to satisfy our concerns about the extension of the use of temporary employment. The opposition amendment will enable the bill to proceed but will ensure that the proposed arrangements for the use of temporary employment are acceptable to the Senate prior to their implementation.The existing clause in the bill provides for regulations to be made to limit the circumstances in which persons may be engaged for a specified term or for the duration of a specified task. In the absence of regulations, there would of course be no limitations on the use of this type of employment. The amendment will reverse the onus and provide that persons may be engaged for a specified term or for the duration of a specified task only in circumstances prescribed in the regulations—in other words, in circumstances approved by the parliament.The government continues to provide limited and exceptional examples to justify the need to have the flexibility across the APS to employ people on a temporary basis for up to three years. Some of the examples provided include unforseen increases in workloads, such as that associated with the current East Timor crisis, the ABS in relation to data processing for the census, and to replace specialists in a small agency who take leave to complete a postgraduate degree or to accompany a spouse on an overseas posting. We have suggested to the government that some of these examples can be addressed through the use of the bill's `specified task' employment category. We have acknowledged that there can be genuine circumstances, which may include the sorts of examples given by the government, to justify engagement of persons for a specified term, up to a maximum of three years.However, the exceptional examples that have been given by the government just do not justify the provision of open-ended flexibility, which we fear will be exploited to the detriment of the APS and its employees. The opposition has offered the government what we think is a very reasonable compromise in the circumstances that would enable persons on longer term leave or transfer to be replaced on a temporary basis for up to 18 months and provide a transparent mechanism to deal with the exceptional circumstances which may justify persons being engaged on a temporary basis for up to three years. Unfortunately, the government has chosen not to accept this compromise. But, rather than oppose the bill, we have chosen to move an amendment which will enable the bill to proceed and further negotiations to occur on the regulations which will subsequently be brought before the Senate for scrutiny.The government claim that they have merged the existing categories of short term—that is, up to 12 months—and fixed term—a maximum of five years with further five-year extensions possible—to form the new employment categories. They acknowledge that they want to widen the existing short-term provisions while claiming that they have narrowed the fixed term provisions. The reality is that the bulk of existing temporary employment is under section 82AD which is limited to 12 months. Employment beyond that must be on a continuing basis. The current fixed term arrangements include union consultation, which the government will not countenance. If the government wish to proceed on a basis of no detriment to the current situation, this should also be on a basis of no detriment to the current situation of employees. The claimed trade-off between existing short-term and fixed term arrangements proposed by the government is very much a one-way process in the government's favour. We are just not prepared to allow the government to use the APS as the vanguard for its second wave industrial laws to promote greater job insecurity and casualisation of its own work force.Of the just over 10,000 temporary employees in the APS—and that excludes overseas locally engaged staff—as at 30 June 1998, nearly 60 per cent were women. In the ASO1 to ASO3 classifications, women made up 73 per cent of temporary employees and 60 per cent of those were women who were over the age of 30. The government's proposals would lead to an expansion of insecure, low paid work for women in the APS. I think the government would effectively be reintroducing a type of marriage bar such as was abolished in the mid-1960s with older women being largely confined to temporary, lower paid work. It is very much another one of the Howard government's `back to the sixties approach'.The government argues that agencies will increase the use of independent contractors and labour hirees to get around the opposition's proposed 12- and 18-month limits, despite the extra cost involved in such employment practices. Rather than use its authority to tighten controls on the misuse of such arrangements, the government proposes to sanction the behaviour by giving agencies the weapons to casualise their work force. The APS is a large enough work force to be able to effectively manage its fluctuating workload and priorities through appropriate use of short-term, temporary employment through redeployment, natural staff attrition, and on occasion, of course, it resorts to redundancies. But the government's abandonment of an effective service-wide approach to managing excess staff is significantly contributing to the demands for greater use of temporary staff. The simple fact is that these are problems of the government's own making.The opposition is prepared to look constructively at ways of addressing the genuine operational demands of agencies in determin ing the appropriate mix between temporary and permanent staff, but that should not result in heightened job insecurity or create ghettoes of low paid, insecure work for women and of course the casualisation of the APS work force. We are disappointed that we could not reach agreement in relation to regulations in this important area, and because of that the opposition is adopting the approach it is, which I think in these circumstances is both sensible and constructive. It is in that spirit that I commend the opposition amendment to the committee.11:07:009695Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government cannot accept the opposition amendment as it believes it effectively outlaws employment in the APS for a specified term or for a specified task. It is on only this one amendment that the government and the opposition have disagreement.The opposition is proposing that no-one will be able to be employed in the APS for a short period of time unless regulations are made which deliver the agenda which the union has sought. There have been lengthy discussions with the opposition and also with the Community and Public Sector Union about the circumstances in which people can be employed on this basis. We have gone a long way to addressing concerns expressed by the union about this form of employment, but it continues to insist that nobody can be employed for more than 12 months unless the Public Service Commissioner issues a direction that states that each particular case is an exceptional circumstance.The government has modified its position considerably, but we consider that employees should be able to be engaged in the APS for a specified term of up to three years in order to meet peaks and troughs and in particular regional needs. This can be to replace ongoing employees who may be on leave or working in another Commonwealth agency or even for senators and members of parliament.What we are proposing is consistent with the recommendations of the McLeod report, which was mentioned by Senator Faulkner in his speech in the second reading debate. We are seeking to replace the very complex and confusing array of temporary employment options that exist under the current act with employees who, in the words of the McLeod report, `are recruited to perform a task for a specified period of time or where the period of employment is related to the completion of a specified task or project'. I understand that Mr Doug Lilley, the Secretary of the CPSU, was a member of the McLeod committee at the time. Of course, he has been involved in the negotiations in relation to the amendments which we now see incorporated in this bill.We are limiting the specified term to three years with no capacity for extension of that period. Our initial position was that the term could be up to six years. Even the McLeod report recommended that the period should be extended to five years. We are providing that where such employment is to last for longer than 12 months, it should be advertised and a merit selection process conducted. Specified term employees will be able to apply at any time for an APS vacancy. The opportunity will be provided to any staff of the agency with the relevant skills to express interest in performing the duties before a new employee is engaged for a specified term or task.The government believes that what the opposition is proposing is contrary to the whole basis of the act, which is to give agency heads the powers of an employer, together with the responsibility and accountability that come with it. It is highly inappropriate in that context to require the Public Service Commissioner to determine the exceptional circumstances in which agency heads can employ staff for a specified term of more than 12 months. If we were to accept this amendment, we believe that this would be contrary to the spirit and the proposal, or the basis of the act, as I have outlined.I can take the debate no further, other than to say that the opposition is proposing 12 months; we are saying three years. I ask the Democrats to carefully consider the government's position when it comes to determining its position in relation to the amendment proposed by the opposition.11:12:009696Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—In these circumstances, Min ister, I wonder whether you would be willing to give a commitment to the committee that this set of regulations on temporary employment might be brought forward separately to the other regulations. Could the government acknowledge the good sense in that course of action?11:12:009696Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I can give an undertaking to look at bringing them forward. Am I correct in understanding, Senator Faulkner, that you wish the government to do that or to look at doing that?11:13:009696Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I think you would appreciate, Minister, that one course of action that is open to the Senate is to disallow regulations in this place. You would also appreciate that the opposition has worked very hard to see whether we can reach agreement with the government, not only in relation to the provisions of the bill but also these outstanding sets of regulations which have been subject to debate in the committee stage. It seems to me that the government might consider it a safer course of action, if the Senate were to consider disallowing regulations in relation to temporary employment, that they be brought forward separately. The consequences of any other course of action would I think be clear to you and to the Senate.11:14:009696Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I understand what Senator Faulkner is proposing, but I want to make it clear that I understand that Senator Faulkner is asking me this in addition to moving the amendment that we have just dealt with. It is not an undertaking in lieu of not moving the amendment. I want to clarify that the opposition still wants to proceed with its amendment and seek the undertaking. Or is it an alternative?11:15:009696Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—No, it is not an alternative. I had hoped to have a little more guidance in the chamber as to the likely fate of the amendment before I asked you that question, Minister. The opposition's position is clear: we will be proceeding with the amendment. My question ought not be seen as an alternative to that. I would not want you to respond to it under that misapprehension.11:15:009697Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government would need to look at the purpose of the separate consideration of the regulations, but I undertake to the committee that the government will look at the proposal suggested by Senator Faulkner. I do not think I can take it any further than that at this stage. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Faulkner's ) be agreed to.11:20:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)33Allison, L. Bishop, T. M.Bolkus, N. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Denman, K. J. *Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Greig, B. A.Harradine, B. Ludwig, J. W.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.McLucas, J. E. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. O'Brien, K. W. K.Quirke, J. A. Ridgeway, A. D.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.28Alston, R. K. R. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. *Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Tambling, G. E. J.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.Bartlett, A. J. J. Boswell, R. L. D.Crowley, R. A. Abetz, E.Hogg, J. Crane, W.Hutchins, S. P. Hill, R. M.Lees, M. H. Vanstone, A. E.McKiernan, J. P. Lightfoot, P. R.Ray, R. F. Macdonald, I.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Amendment (by Senator Allison) proposed:Clause 64, page 37 (line 10), omit "Chairman", substitute "Chair".11:23:009697Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I agree. The opposition will support the amendment.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT (CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL) AMENDMENT BILL 1999The bill.11:24:009697Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I wish to take a brief opportunity in this committee stage debate to place on the record the opposition's position on the amendments to the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1999 concerning the determination of remuneration for members of parliament. Senators would be aware that the remuneration for MPs is currently set by the Remuneration and Allowances Act 1990, which stipulates that the annual salary is equal to the minimum annual salary rate of salary payable to an SES employee with a classification of SES band 2.The salary level for SES band 2 was last adjusted in October 1996 in the context of the continuous improvement in the Australian Public Service Enterprise Agreement 1995-96. Since then, that benchmark has been effectively rendered meaningless by the introduction of AWAs for SES officers. These vary from department to department, as the committee would know, and even potentially vary from officer to officer. In addition, they are confidential to the employer and the employ ee. Clearly, there is a need for a new benchmark. As far as the opposition is concerned, I think it is appropriate that these things not go through the parliament without comment.It is because of this situation that the government has proposed a new process for the benchmarking of MPs' salaries. This will be achieved by amendments to the Remuneration and Allowances Act 1990 and the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973. I will briefly outline the process and place it on the public record. The Minister for Finance and Administration will seek advice from the Remuneration Tribunal about an appropriate reference salary for benchmarking MPs' salary and an appropriate percentage of that salary. The reference salary can be any salary applicable to an office under a determination of the Remuneration Tribunal or a salary for a principal executive classification as determined by the tribunal. The government will then bring forward a regulation to link MPs' salary to the set percentage of the reference salary. Until regulations are in force, or in the absence of regulations, the current benchmark will continue to apply.This mechanism is the government's initiative. In determining our response to the government's proposal, the opposition applied two criteria. These are the same criteria that we have insisted on in the negotiation of those sections of the Public Service Bill 1999 which deal with the setting of remuneration for agency heads and other statutory office holders encompassed by the bill. The criteria are, first, a continuing obligatory advisory role for the Remuneration Tribunal and, second, full transparency in relation to the final determination of the level of remuneration. The government's proposal meets these criteria and accordingly the opposition will support it. It is worth while pointing out that, in addition to meeting the requirement for full transparency, the vehicle for achieving transparency will be a regulation which of course is disallowable by either house of the Australian parliament.I thought it was appropriate that that at least be put on the record as there are often—appropriately—sensitivities about these issues. So I would not want the matter dealt with without me on behalf of the opposition drawing attention to it in the way that I have and outlining fairly what I believe has been the approach of the Senate in these circumstances.11:30:009698Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I want to advise that we will be supporting the Public Employment (Consequential and Transitional) Amendment Bill 1999 . But I do want to put on the record our disappointment that, having resolved the connection between parliamentary salaries and another benchmark which can allow for that full transparency and for those salaries to be set in accordance with some sort of standard, the parliament and the government have not addressed a question which has been one of great public interest for some years now: the parliamentary superannuation scheme. I want to put on the record the disappointment that the Democrats have in the fact that this was not dealt with in this legislation.We will be making submissions to the government in relation to dealing with the parliamentary superannuation scheme, and I again draw the Senate's attention to the superannuation committee's report almost two years ago, which said that attention needed to be paid to this question. I also draw the Senate's attention to the Prime Minister's remarks that the matter should be a holistic one—that is, we should not be considering superannuation without also looking at the question of remuneration for parliamentarians. That issue has not been resolved. The Prime Minister has not delivered on that promise that he would do it. I want to indicate that the Democrats will continue to pursue this, but obviously there is not a great deal of support from either of the major parties in this respect.11:32:009698Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I think I need to comment on those last remarks by Senator Allison. I think Senator Allison has misunderstood the government's position. The government has always indicated that it would consider the issue of reviewing parliamentary superannuation after legislation had been passed which dealt with parliamentary remuneration. This is not the legislation to be dealing with superannuation. We have always said that one should be dealt with first, and the other will follow once we know what we are dealing with in respect of salaries. When Senator Allison says that it should be dealt with holistically, that does not mean the government has said that it should be dealt with at the same time. The government has always said that one follows the other, and we have always said that we will consider the issue of parliamentary superannuation once parliamentary remuneration has been dealt with. There is nothing unclear about that. Our position has been constant throughout and quite transparent.11:33:009699Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I will check the record and I thank the minister for that assurance. But can I follow it up with a question: when will this consideration take place and in what form?11:33:009699Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The government has stated that that review will take place after the legislation which deals with parliamentary remuneration has been passed. As to when that will take place, who knows? There has been an amendment to this bill which the government will have to consider. This bill has been amended in a form which might well be unacceptable to the government. So let us deal with this bill first, before we know where we are going in the future. The question of a review will be determined at an appropriate time.11:34:009699Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I do not find that a very acceptable response on the part of the minister. As I said earlier, we have raised this matter in the parliament for a long time now, probably going back to when I first came into this place and the Senate superannuation committee considered the matter. To have the minister say just now that the review will happen who knows when and it will all be a question of this bill being passed does not seem to me to be a very acceptable assurance. I wonder whether the minister can give us a slightly stronger undertaking that it will take place and tell us what exactly the government has in mind in terms of the review and who might do that review. As you recall, the committee identified a problem with the Remuneration Tribunal being the one body to do this review, since the Remuneration Tribunal rarely acts unless it is invited to make radical changes to something of this sort. It would be unlikely to propose the sorts of changes which I think community expectations would suggest ought to be taken. I ask the minister if he can be a little more robust in his response to what might happen in the future in terms of this review.11:35:009699Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Can I just say to the Democrats: be a little bit more robust in supporting us in passing the previous bill, and we can move forward. But, as I say, until the previous bill is passed in a form acceptable to the government—and that will have to be considered, of course—we cannot get onto the next question of superannuation. The ball is very much in the Democrats' court.11:36:009699Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I do not wish to pursue this debate and take up the time of the chamber, but it is not the first time that I have heard the government suggest that superannuation for parliamentarians cannot be dealt with until this bill is out of the way. All this bill does is connect our remuneration with some benchmark which disappeared a couple of years ago. This is nothing to do with superannuation. It is unreasonable for the minister to suggest that the chamber is holding up any sort of consideration of parliamentary super, and I reject that suggestion strongly and totally. Again, this does not satisfy me in terms of being a first stage in a two-stage process. I hear no real undertaking that anything reasonable will arise some time in the future. I am not hearing the minister suggest that there is any commitment at all to proceeding to the reform of the parliamentary super scheme.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—Senator Allison, are you going to move your amendments?1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—Yes. I seek leave to move Democrat amendments Nos 1 to 4 on sheet 1582 together.Leave granted.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—I move:(1) Schedule 1, page 37 (after line 1), before item 150, insert:150A Section 3 Omit "Chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "Chair".150B Section 4 (definition of Chairman ) Repeal the definition, substitute: Chair means the Chair of the ACA.150C Section 4 (definition of Deputy Chairman ) Repeal the definition, substitute: Deputy Chair means the Deputy Chair of the ACA.150D Section 16 Omit "Chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "Chair".150E Subsections 17(2) and (3) Omit "Chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "Chair".150F Subsections 22(3), (4) and (5) Omit "Chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "Chair".150G Section 24 Omit "Chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "Chair".150H Subsections 34(1) and (2) Omit "Chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "Chair".(2) Schedule 1, page 37 (after line 4), after item 150, insert:150J Subsections 35(2), (3) and (4) Omit "Chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "Chair".150K Subsections 39(1), (2) and (3) Omit "Chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "Chair".(3) Schedule 1, item 152, page 37 (lines 10 to 13), omit "Chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "Chair".(4) Schedule 1, page 37 (after line 13), after item 152, insert:152A Subsections 48(4) and (5) Omit "Chairman" (wherever occurring), substitute "Chair".These amendments are similar to those moved to the last bill and remove the word `chairman' and substitute `chair'. This provides a choice for women in particular to be named by a term other than `chairman'. Obviously women are not men and we think there ought to be an opportunity in this day and age for them to be called chair or what ever else they choose to be called. I am surprised that `chairman' is still appearing in legislation before the Senate. It is my understanding that the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 would have prevented that from happening. I would be interested in a response from the minister as to why this legislation has appeared in this form in relation to the word `chairman'.11:38:009700Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I will answer that question first because we need to be absolutely certain that, wherever the word `chairman' appears in this bill, if it is to be amended in this way, `chair' replaces that word. In other words, does this amendment cover every instance in the bill where the word `chairman' is used? My advice is that if that is not done, then you could have unintended consequences. I would ask the Democrats to ensure that they have done that. The government do not oppose this, but we just want to make absolutely sure that we have included every reference to chairman.11:39:009700Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I believe this to be the case but perhaps there could be an opportunity for the government to do a quick check on it too. As I said, I understand that that is so; perhaps we need a pause in order to answer the question.11:39:009700Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—In relation to the other question put by Senator Allison, I will take that on notice.11:39:009700Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—The opposition supports the amendment that has been moved by Senator Allison in relation to the replacement of the word `chairman' with the word `chair'.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE BILL 1999The bill.11:41:009700Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 1 to 3:(1) Clause 11, page 10 (after line 2), at the end of the clause, add: (2) The Presiding Officers must issue written determinations under section 70 in relation to each of the Parliamentary Service Values, having regard to the advice received from the Commissioner under subsection (1). (3) The Presiding Officers must cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament a copy of the advice received from the Commissioner under subsection (1).(2) Page 19 (after line 31), after clause 26, insert:26A Compulsory moves between Parliamentary Departments and between the Parliamentary Service and the Australian Public Service (1) The Commissioner may: (a) with the agreement of the Presiding Officers, move an excess Parliamentary Service employee to another Parliamentary Department; or (b) with the agreement of the Public Service Commissioner, move a transitional excess Parliamentary Service employee to an APS Agency. (2) For the purposes of this section: (a) a Parliamentary Service employee is an excess Parliamentary Service employee if, and only if, the Secretary has notified the Commissioner in writing that the employee is excess to the requirements of the Parliamentary Department; and (b) a Parliamentary Service employee is a transitional excess Parliamentary Service employee if, and only if, the employee was covered by the Public Service Act 1922 at the time immediately before this Act commenced and the Secretary has notified the Commissioner in writing that the employee is excess to the requirements of the Parliamentary Service.(3) Clause 70, page 44 (after line 18), after subclause (3), insert: (3A) Determinations made for the purposes of sections 22 and 32 must apply, adopt or incorporate to the maximum extent possible regulations made for the purposes of sections 22 and 33, respectively, of the Public Service Act 1999 . (3B) Subsection (3A) does not, by implication, limit subsection (3).I indicate that I will move the other amendment on sheet 1595 separately. That amendment mirrors the amendment that I moved to the Public Service Bill 1999 . I propose to move that amendment separately because the committee divided on that issue a few minutes ago.Let me speak briefly to these amendments to the Parliamentary Service Bill 1999 . The first of these concerns the Parliamentary Service values. In the Public Service Bill we have been concerned to ensure that the Public Service values are actually incorporated into the management of departments and are upheld by them. We consider that clause 11 of that bill, which provides that the Public Service Commissioner must issue directions in writing for the purpose of ensuring that the APS both incorporates and upholds each APS value, will go a long way towards achieving this objective.The parallel provision in the Parliamentary Service Bill provides only that the Parliamentary Service Commissioner must give advice to the presiding officers. The advice is not necessarily public, as in the case of the Public Service Commissioner's directions, which of course are disallowable instruments. What the presiding officers do with the advice is left entirely to them. This would not achieve our objective of ensuring that the Parliamentary Service values are incorporated into the management of the Parliamentary Service. Accordingly, amendment No. 1 requires the presiding officers to issue written determinations on each of the values and to table the advice they receive from the Parliamentary Service Commissioner.Amendment No. 2 inserts a new clause 26A which would have the effect of preserving the redeployment options which parliamentary staff would otherwise lose as a consequence of their being removed from coverage of the Public Service Act. This amendment was supported by the Senate when the bill was previously debated. It has been subsequently revised by the clerks to overcome concerns which had been raised by Madam President and the government. The revised amendment continues to meet the opposition's objective, so it is proposed by the opposition in the terms that have been circulated in the chamber.In relation to the third amendment, both the Public Service Bill and the Parliamentary Service Bill provide for regulations and determinations to be made for the purposes of prescribing the circumstances in which persons may be engaged on a non-ongoing basis—clause 22—and the mechanisms to be used for review of actions—clauses 33 and 32 respectively. We consider it desirable that determinations under the Parliamentary Service Bill reflect to the maximum extent that is possible the corresponding regulations under the Public Service Bill. To that end we previously moved an amendment, which was supported by the chamber, that required the determinations on review of actions to adopt the corresponding regulations of the Public Service Act. The amendment that I have moved will have the same effect in relation to the regulation under clauses 22 and 32 of the bill.Amendments agreed to.11:46:009702Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:Clause 22, page 16 (lines 24 to 27), omit subclauses (4) and (5), substitute: (4) A person may be engaged as mentioned in paragraph (2)(b) only in circumstances prescribed by the determinations. (4A) The determinations may limit the circumstances in which persons may be engaged as mentioned in paragraph (2)(c). (5) An engagement for a specified term may be extended in circumstances prescribed by the determinations.As I indicated to the committee earlier, this mirrors the amendment I moved, which the committee supported, to the Public Service Bill, which we previously debated. It might save time if I do not repeat those words of wisdom but commend the same amendment to the committee for the Parliamentary Service Bill.11:47:009702Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—For the record, the government opposes this amendment on the grounds I previously outlined in relation to the debate on the Public Service Bill. It is an amendment which will not really help those women who want to work on a temporary basis in the APS. The government believes that its proposal would be much more beneficial to those women who wanted to work on a temporary basis in the APS. I ask the Democrats to think about that when they look at their approach to this amendment. I also reiterate the point that the McLeod committee was not at odds with what the government is proposing, and that was a committee which was cited with favour by the opposition. We will not take it any further, but the government remains opposed to this amendment.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bills reported with amendments; report adopted.9702Bills (on motion by Senator Ellison) read a third time.Bills9702r6709702Consideration resumed from 13 October.(Quorum formed)10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—The committee is considering the bill, as amended. Senator Murray, are you going to move Democrat amendment No. 2 on page 1592 revised?11:52:009702Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Madam Temporary Chairman, I had the impression last night that we had not finished opposition amendments Nos 35 and 36. Had we?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—That is correct.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—I know it is a formality, but we had the impression that Nos 35 and 36 had not been dealt with.11:52:009702Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My colleagues and I share the view of Senator Murray that we had not quite fin ished, but I am happy for the record to stand. I know we dealt with the substantive points, but there were some other amendments and we were not sure whether we actually did—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Conroy, may I just clarify this. Section 614 and items 283 and 363 were put last night together, so we are now on the Democrat amendment No. 2 on revised sheet 1592.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Just before we move on, can I flag the possibility that there may be a consequential amendment that arises out of deleting the mandatory bid. I flag that we may wish to come back to deal with a particular amendment in this section. Because of time constraints, I have not had a chance to consult Senator Murray on it yet.11:54:009703Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Now that we are all straight on that issue, I would like to move Democrat amendment No. 2 on sheet 1592 revised:(2) Schedule 1, item 5, page 158 (after line 19), after paragraph (j), insert: (ja) if, during the period of 4 months before the date of the bid, the bidder or an associate gave, or offered to give or agreed to give a benefit to another person and the benefit was likely to induce the other person, or an associate, to: (i) accept an offer under the bid; or (ii) dispose of securities in the bid class; and the benefit is not offered to all holders of securities in the bid class under the bid—details of the benefitThis amendment relates to the provision of collateral benefits during a takeover bid. My understanding is that it is presently the case that a person may not provide collateral benefits during the period of four months which precedes a takeover bid that are likely to induce a person to accept an offer under a bid. Because of a recent interpretation by the courts as to the definition of collateral benefit, the government has chosen to remove that prohibition. That decision is given effect to by government amendment No. 14 on sheet EP247, which will follow this amendment. The Australian Democrats are not concerned about the removal of the prohibition, but we do believe that the provision of collateral benefits to any prospective seller of shares should be disclosed to all subsequent offerees, and that is the effect of our amendment. We have advised the government and the opposition of this amendment, and I therefore commend it to the committee.Amendment agreed to.11:55:009703Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move government amendment No. 14:(14) Schedule 1, item 5, page 140 (lines 10 to 28), omit subsections (2) and (3).This amendment is also in relation to collateral benefits. I understand there is agreement around the chamber on it.11:55:009703Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—For the record, the Democrats will support the government's amendment.11:55:009703Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—We are happy to go along.Amendment agreed to.11:55:009703Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—by leave—I move Democrat amendments Nos 3 and 13 on sheet 1592 revised:(3) Schedule 1, item 5, page 229 (after line 21), at the end of Part 6A.2, add:Division 3—Notice that person has become 85% holder of a class of securities665D Notice by 85% holder to company85% holder—holder of 85% of securities in particular class (1) A person is an 85% holder in relation to a class of securities of a company if the person holds, either alone or with a related body corporate, full beneficial interests in at least 85% of the securities (by number) in that class. 85% holder—holder with 85% voting power and 85% of whole company (2) A person is also an 85% holder in relation to a class of securities of a company if: (a) the securities in the class are shares or convertible into shares; and (b) the person's voting power in the company is at least 85%; and (c) the person holds, either alone or with a related body corporate, full benefi cial interests in at least 85% by value of all the securities of the company that are either shares or convertible into shares. Person becoming 85% holder to give notice to company (3) A person who becomes an 85% holder in relation to a class of securities of a company must notify the company in writing that they have become an 85% holder in relation to that class. The person must give the notice within 14 days after the person becomes aware of the information. Person continuing to be 85% holder to give notice to company (4) A person who: (a) gives a company a notice under subsection (3) in relation to a class of securities; and (b) is an 85% holder in relation to the class on any anniversary of becoming an 85% holder in relation to the class; must notify the company in writing that they continue to be an 85% holder in relation to the class. The person must give the notice within 14 days after the anniversary.665E Notice by company to other members Company to notify members (1) A company that is given a notice by a person under section 665D in relation to a class of securities must notify its members in writing that: (a) the person: (i) has become an 85% holder in relation to the class; or (ii) continues to be an 85% holder in relation to the class; and (b) the person will be able to acquire the securities in that class under this Part if the person becomes a 90% holder in relation to that class. Time for notifying members (2) The company must notify its members before, or at the same time as, whichever of the following it first gives to its members after the company is given the notice under section 665D: (a) a notice under another provision of this Law (b) a report under a provision of this Law. Information about 85% holder to be prominent if included in other material given to members (3) If a company notifies its members under this section by including the information referred to in paragraph (1)(a) and (b) in: (a) a notice given to members under another provision of this Law; or (b) a report given to members under a provision of this Law; the information must appear prominently in the notice or report.(13) Schedule 3, item 371, page 423, after the item relating to subsection 665A(2), insert:Subsection 665D(3) or (4)Penalty: 25 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both.Section 665EPenalty: 25 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both.These amendments relate to the new provision in section 664A that will allow a person who owns 90 per cent or more of the shares in a company to compulsorily acquire the remaining shares in the company. The acquisition must occur at a fair price and the minority shareholders have the right to object and have the matter determined by a court if they believe that the price does not represent a fair price. For many people, this issue is probably the most contentious issue in the bill, and I am sure Senator Conroy will speak on it at length later on when he comes to his amendment.I made a number of comments in relation to the compulsory acquisition power in previous remarks. I am not going to repeat those except to say that we do accept the need for a power of compulsory acquisition, and of course that is where the debate will be later on, I suspect. This amendment, however, is part of our effort to increase the safeguards attaching to the compulsory acquisition process. We all know that compulsory acquisition needs to be dealt with with great care. The effect of these amendments is to require a shareholder who acquires more than 85 per cent of a company to give notice to the company that they have reached that shareholding. When a company receives notice from a shareholder that that is the case, the company is obliged to give notice to the remaining shareholders that there is an 85 per cent holding and that if that holder increases their holding to 90 per cent the minority may be subject to compulsory acquisition. In other words, it is an early warning device designed to make the market as informed as possible so that people can take action and not have the compulsory acquisition ability descend on them by surprise and not have them unable to plan in advance of that event.Our desire in moving this amendment is to forewarn minority shareholders that their shares may be the subject of compulsory acquisition in the future. The situation we are trying to avoid is a person holding shares for a number of years while a substantial shareholder creeps over the 90 per cent line and that minority holder receiving a letter in the mail out of the blue which states that their shares are going to be acquired compulsorily. This provision will result in those shareholders being given notice in advance that their shares may be compulsorily acquired in the future. As with our other amendments, we have advised both the government and the opposition of our intention and of these amendments. I commend them to the committee.11:58:009705Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I foreshadow that we will move amendments Nos 17, 18, 19 to 26 and 37 after the Democrat amendments. I indicate that under the current arrangements a bidder seeking to take a 100 per cent ownership of a company after the initial step of a part A or part C offer has effectively three steps or options to achieve that goal. Firstly, the bidder might wish to extend the offer period till at least it gains 90 per cent of the shares. On successfully acquiring 90 per cent of the shares in the target company, the bidder could then inform outstanding shareholders of their rights as well as convincing them further of the merits of the bid. Thirdly, should the bidder gain 75 per cent of the outstanding shareholders—that is, shareholders of the remaining 10 per cent—the bidder could then after the close of the offer period issue the outstanding shareholders with a compulsory acquisition notice.These steps are not as entirely onerous as the government might claim. These are appropriate and necessary steps before one party is given the authority to take the proper ty of another. I would concede that a slight improvement may be worthwhile. That is why the opposition supports part of the government's changes to compulsory acquisition. We agree that compulsory acquisition should be allowed once 90 per cent of all securities, not just shares, have been acquired and when 75 per cent of the outstanding securities—that is, by the number of securities, not shareholders—have been acquired by the bidder. But we consider that the government is simply going too far with the proposition that compulsory acquisition can be initiated at any time after 90 per cent of all securities have been acquired, with only a notice of acquisition being issued with an independent report valuing the remaining security.The latter proposition is totally inappropriate, particularly as the concern over greenmailers is not well documented. The government's amendments today on this proposal do not change the inequity it propagates. Many talk about greenmail but before the committee few were willing or unable to give concrete examples of the impact of the so-called greenmailer. It could be concluded from the lack of evidence put before the committee and put before me at various stages that greenmailer activity is exaggerated.Yesterday Senator Campbell commented positively on the qualifications and reputation of Mr Ted Rofe and of the Australian Shareholders Association in arguing their point over the issue of the mandatory bid rule. So why doesn't Senator Campbell listen to Mr Rofe and the ASA about their concerns over the extension of the compulsory acquisition? Mr Rofe stated the following in the ASA submission to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Corporations and Securities:Compulsory acquisition involves the expropriation of the property of the shareholders whose shares are to be acquired. Minority shareholders in a partly owned group of companies are in a particularly vulnerable position. It is therefore essential that any compulsory acquisition of their shares can be seen to be fair to both majority and minority shareholders. As the courts have pointed out on a number of occasions, fairness in this context involves both fair dealing and a fair price. The proposed new compulsory acquisition power in its present form tips the scales too much in favour of the majority shareholders.As more and more Australians are becoming shareholders, changes to compulsory acquisition become a significant concern. As we have already said, a recent survey by the stock exchange earlier this year estimates that 4.4 million Australians now hold shares directly, about 31.9 per cent of the population. The majority is likely to be inexperienced first-time shareholders who may not be able to best represent their own interests.With little doubt, the extension of the compulsory acquisition rule was conceived and designed to placate vested interests. There is absolutely no need for it. But what disappoints me more than the government's proposal on extending compulsory acquisition is the Democrats' willingness—albeit to make it better—to give their support to this proposal. More and more each day I get surprised by the propositions originating from the government and I am surprised by the Democrats finding sense in supporting this proposal. I always believed that the Democrats had a noble role of tempering the excesses of the government of the day, but those days seem to be gone.This issue in particular is about small shareholders, big corporations and vested interests. We are seeing what I believe to be a fair-minded attempt by the Democrats to make this proposal more workable but I believe it will fall short of allowing genuine protection for people in this position. I understand that the ASA is already receiving reports of shareholders being threatened that their shares will be expropriated as soon as this bill becomes law.As a concession, the opposition will support the Democrat amendments that would ensure the valuer is truly independent, but I do not believe that this is sufficient. We have a situation, if this bill is passed, that sees large companies now able to reach out and begin compulsory acquisition for the next 12 months after the declaration. I think, to quote from a famous film, that it will be like the smell of napalm in the morning as the companies move in and, as they would see it, `simply mop up' at the expense of small shareholders. It is possible to argue that you may want to go forward to ensure that future takeovers are not hampered by the so-called greenmailing effect. But to allow open slather for companies that are in a position to try to benefit from this change—to give them the 12 months—is just an extraordinary step and I believe many Australians will be disadvantaged by this proposal to allow an immediate move on their shares as a result of a change in parliament. People will lose out because of this.There are some protections, as I said, and I believe it is a fair-minded attempt by the Democrats in this area to try to ensure an `independent valuation'. That is almost an oxymoron nowadays, as we have seen with the GIO example. We have seen the valuations that have recently been done in the GIO case. I think their shares are now trading down around $3 and people were told, not three or four months ago, that they were worth $5.50. Many hundreds of ordinary Australian battling mums and dads shareholders believed the valuation that they were given by GIO and acted in accordance with that, only to find—a few months later—that their shares had almost halved in value. A class action has begun to try to bring to account whoever was responsible for giving such misleading information to the market.I believe that, while the Democrat amendments will go some way to protecting the valuation process—and a truly independent valuer is a very important step—they do not go far enough, and it is disappointing that representations from many shareholders have not been addressed. I know there is one in particular who has made many representations to all members of the government. I have my own filing cabinet now dedicated to Mr Fielding, as I am sure everyone else in the chamber has, and I know he has made many representations and has many concerns which he has documented at length. It is disappointing that some of his concerns have not been directly addressed. His most recent correspondence to me suggests that he will consider moving offshore. In actual fact he quotes an example where he believes greenmailing will not be fixed by this particular amendment: that if a number of small companies get together and buy up the 10 per cent you will still have this greenmailing. So orchestrated greenmailing will not be fixed by this amendment. The only people who will be disadvantaged are the vulnerable and those who do not quite have all the information necessary to defend themselves.I will be interested in Senator Murray's responses to that. I do not think the Senate chamber has enough time to deal with all of Mr Fielding's concerns, but I would certainly be interested in a response from him on the greenmailing issue. I would also be interested in the government's response. I know they have had extensive correspondence with Mr Fielding. I do not know if he is still a member of the Liberal Party; I think he said he was when he first appeared before me. If Senator Campbell has a few moments, I would be particularly interested to talk about how we will still be able to get together and frustrate orchestrated greenmailing by a couple of companies—I do not know if you have seen his latest correspondence—and how this legislation will deal with a situation like that.12:09:009707Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I omitted to relate my previous remarks to yesterday's mandatory bid situation. I want to put on record that Senator Conroy's strong advocacy for caution in that area was indeed responsible for the mandatory bid effort being preserved. We were dealing there with 80 per cent of shareholders. Given those circumstances and the timing, the right decision was made. Now we are dealing with 10 per cent of the shareholders, and the question before us is: is what we are doing fair? The Rubicon that anyone considering this had to cross was whether it was appropriate and good policy for a minority to be compulsorily bought out. Should there be some mechanism for that to apply? There always have been some mechanisms, of course.We crossed that particular Rubicon, and once we had done that, we had to pay attention to the questions of fair value, of fair notice, of proper market information and of due process. We have three sets of amend ments. We are dealing with the first set now, which relates to better market information and better notice. The second set deals with the independent valuation issue, and the third question deals with ensuring a fairer price. I do not think our sequence of three improvements should be considered minor; I think they are quite significant and quite helpful in ensuring as much fairness as possible in this process.12:11:009707Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I will not delay the committee. I have been asked to respond to a couple of points, and I will respond first to the question asked by Senator Conroy. We believe that the proposition put by the gentleman he mentioned is entirely without foundation and silly. Under these provisions, 10 per cent of the remaining 10 per cent—that is, one per cent of the entire company—can still get together and take a matter off to court.These provisions have been carefully designed to try and balance the interests of all shareholders—to reach a balance between oppression of a minority and dictation by a majority. Senator Conroy raised a fair point about someone who does not want his or her shares acquired. They are a minority; they may get oppressed by a majority. One has to look equally at the small shareholder, the householder, the so-called mums and dads who are on the other side of the barrier between the 90 per cent and the 10 per cent and who are missing out on the benefits of being a wholly-owned subsidiary. They will not get any of the benefit of the 100 per cent control if the 10 per cent who are compulsorily acquired get a bigger amount paid for their shares because the valuer decides it. The 90 per cent do not get any of the value of that, so the 10 per cent are in a powerful position because they hold a leverage over the rest of the corporation. There is a significant benefit, in many respects, in having a 100 per cent ownership of a company—in administration, reporting, taxation and a whole range of things—and that, of course, is what corporations seek.So the point I make, hopefully clearly, is that there are small shareholders on either side of the divide. Surely there will be small shareholders in the 10 per cent which could be compulsorily acquired, but there will be small shareholders on the other side of the divide. Furthermore, we should not think of big businesses or even big institutions as big, nasty fat cats. The reality of institutional as well as direct investment in Australia is that the big institutional investors in Australia—AMP, Colonial, AXA—invest on behalf of lots of small shareholders. The directors of these companies, as well as institutional investors and managed investment schemes, are investing on behalf of small investors.I will quickly summarise the government's position in relation to this. We think that the balance struck in the CLERP bill is sound and that it contains a series of safeguards that protects small shareholders. It involves the disclosure of all material information to minority shareholders; independent experts' reports; a process by which shareholders can object to the compulsory acquisition, which I have already outlined; court approval of the fairness of the price where at least 10 per cent of the shareholders object—so you only need one per cent of the company to object and you can have it referred; and a requirement that the person seeking to make the compulsory acquisition fund any reasonable court costs incurred by the minority shareholders.We do not think the Democrat amendments are necessary or an improvement. However, we believe that it is very important that this legislation is passed. Greenmailing is a serious problem in Australia. ASIC have said publicly that greenmailing is a serious problem. Greenmailing acts to the benefit of a minority of greedy people to the detriment of the great majority of small shareholders, who miss out on the opportunity to use their leverage. That is what a greenmailer does. They use a strategic position—often planned out years in advance—to extort an exorbitant price at the cost of the other shareholders. It is a serious problem. ASIC have said that it is a serious problem in the Australian marketplace, as have experts on CASAC, the Corporations and Securities Advisory Committee.I do pay very close attention to the views of people like Ted Rofe, as I have said on a number of occasions in this debate. Ted thinks that we have got the balance slightly wrong in this case; I think we have got it slightly right. But we are happy to see these provisions put in place with the Democrat amendments. We do not welcome the amendments but we want the provisions to go ahead. We will not oppose the amendments. If it means passage in that form, we will be pleased to support them.12:16:009708Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—This is another example of where legislators—and in many cases quite correctly, in my view—interfere with market forces. It is an attractive demonstration of a socialist approach to society. What you are trying to do is to adjust the balances between two forces. I hope that philosophy remains in this chamber when we come to talk about the Workplace Relations Act, because what we will be doing then is trying to find means whereby we can adjust unequal forces.This is a strike against the old capitalist system. It is a strike for the socialist approach to things; that is, where you try to get some fairness into the system by frustrating forces which flow within the marketplace normally. To get over that problem you say it is going to be more efficient and you demonise a particular group of people. You say that the 10 per cent—not the 90 per cent—are the demons because they are capable of greenmail, and if you are within that 10 per cent you must be a greenmailer by definition. In the old days they used to call that a witch-hunt. Then you get some authority from the Australian Securities Investment Commission to say, `These are evil people and therefore we will frustrate the market forces that operate in their favour.' Not only that, but you then say, `If there's going to be a court case about this, you're not going to be able to call your own witnesses. We are going to tell you what witnesses to call. ASIC, which has been very upset about greenmail, will choose those witnesses for you.'I would not like to run the sort of case where you say, `These 10 per cent of people are all greenmailers; they are evil people. We have to suppress them. ASIC has told us about these people who get too much money. We are going to get ASIC to choose the witnesses in this case and they will have to be happy about that.' It just seems to me an extraordinary approach that, where property—and property of course is at the basis of Western society, as Senator Hutchins knows, and we have respect for property—is in the hands of that 10 per cent of people, we say that these people are evil and therefore we are going to affect their property rights. If they want compensation we will give them that—it is fair compensation—and if they want to call certain witnesses we say, `No, you're not allowed to call those witnesses; we will tell you what witnesses you can call.'I can understand all this. It does my old socialist heart good. I am not sure it does my old socialist heart so good when I know that I cannot exercise the rights that I should be able to exercise to at least run my own court case. Nevertheless, if the—I almost have to say—bolshie government and the Democrats want to take this approach, I do not think we can do anything about it.12:20:009709Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I would just like to respond to the comments of the government in relation to, as the government put it, one per cent of the company having leverage over the rest of the company in relation to the prices that they would receive for their shares. The first thing I would like to raise is that a person's right to buy and sell at any given time is part of the market. If a person chooses to hold their shares for a longer period with the desired benefit of achieving a higher price for them, that cannot be regarded as being to the detriment of the other 90 per cent who are locked out, because those 90 per cent of shareholders have the free option of when they wish to purchase their shares.The other side of the balance is that the persons holding that one per cent of the shares are still exposed to the normal market forces. Market forces can move those share prices up or down, and that can be a result of either intentional actions by the company or unintentional actions. There could be equally as great a danger in that small percentage of shareholders retaining that holding and then finding that the share price has been driven down. They would be left with no option other than to cut their losses and sell their shares and, in doing so, give the company the 100 per cent it desires to hold. The government is saying there is leverage for that small percentage of shareholders; in actuality there are equally well balanced reasons for those shareholders to end up suffering for having held those shares. So I believe it is incorrect for the government to raise just one side of the issue in relation to this 10 per cent of residual shareholders and not raise the downside: that those people would actually be exposed, either by intentional or unintentional actions, to market forces.12:23:009709Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I have been drawn into referring to the contribution made in the other place by the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, unfortunately. He has again been on his feet, as he was yesterday, accusing the Labor Party of opposing everything—opposing corporate law reform. He is saying that we are the problem; we are the reason that this bill has been slow. I just want to take up a little more of this chamber's time, unfortunately, because the minister in the other place cannot control himself. As I said, he has again been on his feet slagging us, saying that we do not understand the issues, that we are being laughed at globally because of this, that we are going to pay the price and that the sky is going to fall in.It is good to see that he has dragged himself away from the many lunches he has been telling the Financial Review he has been having—`the Minister for Lunch', as he is becoming known now. His comments are disappointing because this bill was brought on yesterday for the first time. We are seeing the government attempting to paint the Labor Party as the reason it has taken three years for this bill to make it into this chamber; whereas the government has not seen fit to give this bill the priority that I believe it deserved. This is not actually a criticism in any way of Senator Ian Campbell, because he has a case of Grange on it for a start, Senator Murray possibly has a couple of bottles to come out of it, and I don't drink so I am clear on the Grange.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—Perhaps I could have your bottle then.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Yes, Senator Murray, you can have my bottle. Senator Ian Campbell has done everything he can to speed the passage of this bill; I can personally attest to that, as I am sure Senator Murray can. The problem we had is that this government did not bring this bill forward until yesterday. This government had not sought to prioritise this bill and bring it on. Yet, it has continually gone into the boardrooms of this country saying that the Labor Party has been the problem and that the Labor Party has been the reason that this bill has not been passed.Let us look at Mr Hockey's comments recently when he was being asked in an interview with the Financial Review to justify his $7 million given to him for his portfolio area. He said that the `financial services ambassador' has to have a high profile, that you have to have one on one contact and that anyone who is expecting a major statement in this area would be disappointed. He said:There's no big bang, there's no great unveiling. It's a brick-by-brick construction job. . . The journalist goes on to say:. . . the strategy essentially involves Mr Hockey sitting down to a lot of lunches, dinners and boardroom meetings with multinational bankers.Well, what a portfolio that would be to have. We could not get that lucky, Senator Murray. The minister went on to say:I'll meet with anyone from insurers to international banks to exchanges to central banks, and from chief executives to divisional heads.I have to tell you: that is a long lunch list. No wonder this bill has not been able to get here. He has been in the job for 12 months and it has taken him 12 months to bring this bill into the chamber. Then he wants to turn around and accuse us, in between his international junkets, in between being overseas and wooing the world, as he describes it. He then wants to blame the Labor Party and say that we are slowing down this process. It is not good enough; the government cannot have it both ways. We have sought to cooperate at all points. We have legitimate points of differ ence on this bill. We have made them clear for months. It is not the Labor Party that did not prioritise this bill and bring it on in this chamber. The minister also said, in answer to a dorothy dix question a month or two ago:The Labor Party is solely responsible for the delay in this bill. It is solely responsible for the bill not beginning on 1 July.That is the minister's statement, Senator Campbell. You should point out to him that he did not list this bill, and that the first time it appeared was yesterday because that is what the government's priorities were, not, as he continually asserts—and he has just asserted again in the other place—because we have been the problem here. Further on in his answer, he said:The Labor Party should have the courage to come into this House and admit that it has been deliberately delaying government legislation in the Senate.Again, this is not true. The government chose its priorities; it wanted the GST package through before 30 June. It did not have the courage to list CLERP in this chamber before 30 June; it did not list it until last week. He goes on to say:I am not going to cop the member for Melbourne coming in here and reading the instructions from Senator Conroy.And I am not going to cop the minister standing up in the other place making accusations without foundation against me and the member for Melbourne when in actual fact what happened is that he has not been able to drag himself away from his international trips to New York—the roving `financial services ambassador'. All he had to do was rove over to the Senate and list the bill. That is all he had to do.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—Where are you going next week?3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I will be trying to keep pace with Joe, but it is a pretty tough call. So I am not going to cop the minister standing up and giving us a serve every time he sees fit to try to paper over his own deficiencies by blaming the Labor Party. It is not good enough, and I am not going to stand for it, just like he said he is not going to stand for it. So, if Mr Hockey wants to be fair dinkum about this process, he should stand up and say, `We did not list this bill. We did not give it priority, but now we have finally done it.' It is not Senator Ian Campbell's fault, as I have said. Senator Campbell has fought, kicked and scratched to try to get this bill up and through as fast as he can. So this is in no way a reflection on Senator Ian Campbell. But the minister should not be allowed to mislead the chamber, to mislead the business community in this country and to mislead the Australian public about the way the movement of this bill has happened.Amendments agreed to.12:30:009711Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—by leave—I move Democrat amendments Nos 4, 5 and 6 on sheet 1592 revised:(4) Schedule 1, item 5, page 232 (before line 5), before paragraph 667A(1)(a), insert: (aa) be prepared by a person nominated by ASIC under section 667AA; and(5) Schedule 1, item 5, page 232 (after line 21), after section 667A, insert:667AA Expert to be nominated (1) A person who proposes to obtain an expert's report for the purposes of section 663B, 664C or 665B must request ASIC in writing to nominate a person to prepare the expert's report. (2) Within 14 days after receiving a request under subsection (1), ASIC must nominate: (a) an appropriate person to prepare the report; or (b) up to 5 appropriate persons, one of whom the person making the request may choose to prepare the report. (3) In determining whether a person is an appropriate person to prepare an expert's report, and without limiting the matters that ASIC may consider, ASIC must consider the nature of the company to be valued.(6) Schedule 1, item 5, page 233 (after line 25), at the end of section 667C, add: (2) Without limiting subsection (1), in determining what is fair value for securities for the purposes of this Chapter, the consideration (if any) paid for securities in that class within the previous 6 months must be taken into account.I will speak very briefly to these amendments. Amendments Nos 4 and 5 relate to the new compulsory acquisition power and are all about ensuring that the price minority shareholders are paid is fair. Under the existing provisions of this bill, an expert is commissioned by the 90 per cent holder to prepare an expert report on the value of the securities being compulsorily acquired.As I mentioned during my speech on the second reading, the Australian Democrats think it is appropriate for the expert to be appointed by an independent body. During negotiations with the government we canvassed numerous possible options as to who the independent appointee should be. Ultimately, we came to the conclusion that ASIC is in the best position to undertake this role. It will be incumbent on a 90 per cent holder to request ASIC to nominate a person or up to five persons from which the 90 per cent holder can choose to prepare the report. In determining whether a person is appropriate to prepare the report, ASIC is obliged to consider the nature of the company to be valued and, obviously, obliged to consider the appropriateness of the professionals available. Our desire is that these amendments increase the independence and the perception of independence of the preparation of the expert's report, and that has been a longstanding aim of ours.Amendment No. 6 relates to the new compulsory acquisition provisions and particularly to the determination of a fair value for the securities which are the subject of the compulsory acquisition. The amendment requires that, in determining what is fair value for securities, the price, if any, paid for securities within the previous six months must be taken into account. I commend those amendments to the Senate.12:32:009711Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I just want to say something about this independent choosing of experts, as if ASIC is a body that has the capabilities of deciding whether a person is a reasonable expert or not. That is normally something that is left to the court to decide, and it also locks in the ability of a person to litigate and to have his matter heard on the basis that he wants to put it, or she wants to put—or it wants to put it, for that matter. Apparently it is now the position in Victoria—it used to be the position only in Queensland, and Senator Hutchins will remember this—that you have a panel of doctors and an injured worker has to take one of those doctors as the expert in the field. But, if that doctor is wrong, the person gets nowhere near the compensation that he or she ought to. I notice the position in Queensland—and I must check in Victoria, since it has come in there now—is that the sorts of doctors chosen are not those who are all that sympathetic to the injured worker.This is a repeat of that. You have the person who is likely to be in the weakest position—the one in the 10 per cent of those who hold shares—having to put up with an `expert' chosen by ASIC, who, we have been told, does not like greenmailers, those in the 10 per cent, and that person has got to make do with that. ASIC cannot be cross-examined about the way they go about choosing the expert. The expert can. But why this great lack of faith in the court's ability to decide who the expert ought to be and what the ability of that expert ought to be? Why do we consistently lack faith in our judicial system? Why do we foist upon people witnesses that they might not want? Yet we say we are in a free society.Amendments agreed to.12:35:009712Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—The opposition opposes sections 664A to 665C.12:35:009712Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—In rising to support the Labor Party in it opposition to these sections, I would like to raise some concerns with relation to proposed part 6A.2. This section proposes to introduce a new compulsory acquisition power which would enable a majority shareholder to compulsorily acquire the shares of the minority shareholders without making a proper takeover offer. This is not only unfair to minority shareholders, but it is also unnecessary in light of the following: the government's proposal to allow capital gains tax rollover relief for scrip takeover offers; other amendments included in the bill facilitating the acquisition of the shares of dissenting shareholders following a takeover offer which has received 90 per cent acceptance, and other existing provisions in the Corporations Law enabling a majority of shareholders to acquire the shares of minority shareholders at a fair price; section 661E, which proposes to take away the powers of a court to prevent a compulsory acquisition of shares which is clearly unfair to the shareholders whose shares it is proposed are to be acquired; section 667A(1), which proposes to prevent an expert's report from stating whether or not the terms of a proposed compulsory acquisition are fair and reasonable; and, lastly, section 667C, which proposes to impose an arbitrary and unfair formula for valuing securities.There is a list of companies which at this time are clearly being affected by this proposal from the government. These companies all have a shareholder or shareholders with more than 90 per cent of the capital. I would like to take the time of the Senate to name a few of these companies and the possibilities that they face. They are Albert Street Property Ltd, formerly Fitwear Ltd, and Mr Solly Lew, who owns 90 per cent of that company. Australian Consolidated Investments Ltd, previously known as Bell Resources Ltd, then under the control of Alan Bond, is owned 97.866 per cent by Brierley Investments Ltd, a New Zealand public company. There are 3,053 other shareholders holding the balance of that company. Some of those are banks and sharebroker nominee companies and it would be anticipated that they would represent a number of those minority shareholders.Allgas Energy Ltd is currently under takeover offer in respect of ordinary shareholdings. It seems this will go to compulsory acquisition after which the preference shareholders will be swept away by the new legislation. Recently, merchant bank advisers have been indicating to the preference shareholders that they may be expected to receive a much lower price for their shares than they would recently have been offered.Other companies include Bond Industries Ltd; H. Beecham & Company Ltd, which is a class of preferential shareholders, the parent being the Wright family company; Carlton Hotel Ltd, which is a class of preferential shareholders and of which the ultimate parent is Amalgamated Holdings Ltd; Caesar Fabrics Ltd; Goldstream Australia Ltd, whose parent company is Southcorp Ltd; Forbes Securities Ltd; Goldrim Mining Australia Ltd, the parent company there being Marac Ltd owned by the McIntosh family; Goodyear Australia Ltd, which is a class of preferential shareholders, the parent being Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Company of the United States.Lasarex Ltd has 98.75 per cent of ordinary shares owned by Continental Venture Capital Ltd and there is in excess of another 1,000 shareholders, most of whom have held the shares since that company was floated; Morning Star Holdings Australia Ltd; MBf Carpenters Ltd; National Consolidated Ltd; Pauls Ltd is a preferential share class of 40 shareholders and the parent now is an Italian company. So we have an Italian company which will be in the position to acquire the remaining 10 per cent of Australian shareholders in that company and there are concerns as to whether those people will get just value for their shares. That same Italian parent company has also recently taken over Pauls Ltd, which is the former QUF company.Public Holdings (Australia) Ltd is more than 90 per cent owned by a Hong Kong based Indonesian group; Quatro Ltd; Standard Chartered Bank Australia Ltd is a preferential share class and the parent company is Standard Chartered Pty Ltd; Van Diemens Land Company, which was established by royal charter from George III and is now more than 90 per cent owned by Tasman Agriculture Ltd; and, lastly, Geoffrey Thompson Holdings Ltd, now more than 90 per cent owned by the Geoffrey Thompson family.If the government's proposal goes forward, even if these companies do as the government indicated but one per cent of the company holdings—in other words, 10 per cent of the minority 10 per cent shareholders—decide to go to court under the conditions that the government is proposing, these companies will find themselves in a position where they will not be able to argue whether the price that is being offered is just and fair. I believe that this is definitely an unfair impost on those people.In conclusion, I support the Labor Party's opposition to this section, which will bring a balance, I believe, and give minority shareholders a chance to remain in the market until such time as they believe it is the correct time for them to sell their shares. We are venturing into a section where we are legislating when people can and cannot sell their shares. I think that is to the detriment of the whole intent of publicly listed companies.Progress reported.Bills9713s2209713Debate resumed from 23 June, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.12:45:009713Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—The opposition supports the Customs (Tariff Concession System Validations) Bill 1999 . I notice the Democrats are about to move an amendment, and I would expect that to be on the basis that this is retrospective. I think retrospectivity is bad. The defence, if that is the right word to use, of those proposing the bill is that this was a mistake—that everybody knew what the situation was and the mistake was quite apparent and that, therefore, it is reasonable, in the interests of revenue, to make retrospective legislation so that the money that has been collected will after this have been collected lawfully. Up until now, it is has been collected unlawfully.The opposition supports this position, but it is good to get legislation right when it is first written. If we get legislation right when it is first written, people do not have the opportunity to get themselves into a position with money whereby it has to be taken from them by retrospective legislation, as you know, Parliamentary Secretary, from your many years as one of the well-known figures on the Regulations and Ordinances and the Scrutiny of Bills committees. In any event, I make those comments and indicate that the opposition is supporting the bill.12:48:009713Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—In rising to speak on the Customs (Tariff Concession System Valida tions) Bill 1999 , I was amused by two things. Firstly, Senator Cooney and I discussed how the shifting sands of truth, light and justice move. He was vigorously opposed to me just now, and I am now vigorously opposed to him. The second thing I was amused by was his willingness to refer to the many years the parliamentary secretary has been in this place.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—No, on Scrutiny of Bills and Regs and Ords.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—My mother always said to me that you never refer to years, and when she died I discovered that she had always told us the wrong age!I understand that the purpose of this bill is to remove any doubt about the validity of certain decisions made by officers of the Australian Customs Service in relation to the tariff concession system. The tariff concession system allows for goods to be imported at a concessional rate of duty, essentially in circumstances where there are no local manufacturers of substitutable goods.In November 1995 the Chief Executive Officer of Customs generally delegated his powers and functions in relation to the tariff concession system to certain officers of Customs. In July 1996 the government made changes to the tariff concession system. Those changes resulted in amendments to the Customs Act, including the introduction of additional powers and functions. New delegations were not sought for powers that were added to sections of the act which were already the subject of the November 1995 instrument. It was thought at the time that that instrument was sufficient.However, doubt was raised over the sufficiency of the delegations in relation to the tariff concession system in a recent hearing of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. In response to this, the Chief Executive Officer signed two instruments on 31 May 1999. The first revoked all delegations for the tariff concession system; the second issued a new delegation covering all the powers and functions in relation to the tariff concession system. Both instruments took effect on 1 July 1999. The consequence of all this is that certain decisions and actions taken in relation to the tariff concession system subsequent to the July 1996 changes to the act may—and I stress `may'—have been subject to inadequate delegations.This bill will remove any doubt about the validity of decisions made between July 1996 and 31 May 1999. The retrospective validation will not apply to tariff concession matters raised in the AAT as at 1 June 1999 where a customs decision relied on an insufficient delegation or person who, as at 1 June 1999, had already applied for a refund of duty based on an insufficient delegation.The problem that the Democrats have with this bill is the arbitrary cut-off date. If you applied for a refund of duty because of the inadequate delegation before 1 June 1999, then you were okay. If you have just discovered that you would have had a right to a refund, then it is too late. In other words, same classes of taxpayers are being dealt with in a different way. The Democrats are not comfortable with the backdating of the cut-off date. It should be made clear that people who potentially had the right to obtain a refund of duty were not given notice of that right and, as far as I am aware, the Customs Service did not publicly advertise prior to 1 June 1999 that from that date the rights to refunds would be extinguished.I will be moving an amendment in the committee stage which has been circulated. It will seek to amend the 1 June 1999 cut-off date to the date on which this bill commences. This amendment would have the affect of allowing anyone who has claimed a refund or commenced review proceedings in the AAT before the commencement date to continue with their application. The right to obtain a refund will be cut off only from the date of commencement.I understand, from what Senator Cooney has said, that the Labor Party will not support me in that amendment, essentially for the reason that they feel they must deal with the bill in the Senate in precisely the same way as they have dealt with the bill in the House of Representatives. Also, because this issue was not raised with them before the bill was dealt with in the other chamber, they cannot at this time change their position. If that summary of your situation is untrue, I am sure you will tell me but, if that is correct, I think it indicates an inflexibility which is regrettable. The Australian Democrats will take the amendment on the voices and will be supporting the passage of the bill thereafter.12:53:009715Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I thank honourable senators for their contributions and also for the fact that they have done so succinctly. The Australian Democrats have been concerned that the bill may be invalid as it could represent an acquisition of property on unjust terms, contrary to section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution. Legal advice obtained from the Chief General Counsel of the Australian Government Solicitor indicates that the bill is not a law with respect to the acquisition of property for the purposes of that section. A copy of that advice has been provided to the Australian Democrats and the Australian Labor Party.With respect to the amendment, the bill does not remove any legal right that a person or company may have to seek review of a decision made under the tariff concession system. It simply acts to remove any doubt about the validity of certain decisions to the extent that they were taken in reliance on a delegation that may not have been sufficient. It does not change the decisions which have been made. The effect of the amendment would be to provide a windfall gain to any importer who chooses to lodge a refund or AAT application before the bill receives royal assent. This would also reinstate certain tariff concession orders even though application of the provisions of the tariff concession system has established that those tariff concession orders should be revoked. The government will not be supporting the Democrats amendment. I commend the bill to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.9715The bill.Amendments (by Senator Murray)—by leave—not agreed to:(1) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 12), after the definition of CEO , insert: commencement day means the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.(2) Clause 6, page 3 (line 25), omit "1 June 1999", substitute "the commencement day".(3) Clause 6, page 3 (line 31), omit "1 June 1999", substitute "the commencement day".(4) Clause 6, page 4 (line 3), omit "1 June 1999", substitute "the commencement day".(5) Clause 6, page 4 (line 10), omit "1 June 1999", substitute "the commencement day".Bill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.9715Bill (on motion by Senator Patterson) read a third time.Bills9715s1899715Debate resumed from 25 November 1998, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.12:56:009715Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—The opposition supports this bill with an amendment which I understand the government accepts. This is a bill which strengthens the power of Customs at the border. It is a lot better to stop things at the border than to discover them within the country. I think the time is coming when it is more and more urgent to get some sort of system going where matters are stopped before they even get to the border. In other words, we need to come to an arrangement with other countries to stop drugs and other illegal cargo being taken away from the port of departure. In any event, this is a move to strengthen the border, and the opposition agrees with that move.The opposition's amendment takes away vicarious criminal liability. The bill, as originally written, made employers criminally responsible for the actions of their employees, which is a very harsh approach. It is different with companies. Companies are organisations which, by their very nature, operate through a whole series of people. In the course of that operation, as it were, within its shell—that is, the body of the company that is made up by all of these people—if part of that body acts in a criminal way, then the body itself is criminally responsible. For example, if the hand did something—if it stole with the mind behind it—then that is criminal and the whole body is criminal.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—It depends if you are left or right handed!SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—It does not matter what it is. Why should an employer be responsible when he or she had no part in the crime at all? Just because there is an employment relationship between the two, if the employer is punished and given a criminal conviction, it is just not right. I am very pleased to see that the government has realised that it will be fairer to go with this amendment.13:00:009716Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—My colleague Senator Stott Despoja made a number of comments on Labor's amendment in her minority report when the Senate Legal and Constitution Legislation Committee inquired into the Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 [1999] . I draw the Senate's attention to those comments. This bill makes companies and people criminally responsible for certain actions of their employees. Statutory and common law determines the obligations of companies. As fictional legal entities, it has been appropriate to attach vicarious liability for the criminal actions of their employees. However, individuals should not be treated in the same way as companies. It is not appropriate for vicarious liability to attach to a person for the behaviour of other persons, whether they be employees or employers.There are relationships between people which properly attract criminal sanctions. A person might rightly be punished for aiding and abetting another or inciting him or her in the commission of a crime, but the relationship giving rise to those offences is quite different from that established by employment alone. The Democrats cannot accept that a person should be deemed to be a criminal simply because he or she employs someone else who commits an offence. Criminality is a grave matter. It ought not be visited on anyone without due course. I wish to place on the record that the Australian Democrats unreservedly support the amendment moved by the Labor Party and will thereafter support the bill.13:01:009716Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—Again, I thank honourable senators for their contributions and their brevity. The Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 [1999] contains legislative amendments proposed by the government to implement part of the Tough on Drugs strategy, an initiative announced by the Prime Minister on 2 November 1997. The bill amends the Customs Act 1901 with the objective of providing Customs officers with more effective powers in relation to the detection of illicit drugs at the border. The bill also amends the Customs Administration Act 1985 in relation to the use made of information obtained or held by the Australian Customs Service.The issue of vicarious liability was raised and was the subject of two minority reports of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee—one from the opposition and one from the Democrats. The government will agree to the proposed amendment to remove personal liability. Individuals should not be held liable for the action of their employees in relation to vicarious liability. I indicate that the government will be supporting the amendment. I commend the bill to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.9716The bill.Amendment (by Senator Cooney) proposed:(1) Schedule 2, item 3, page 39 (line 28) to page 40 (line 17), omit subsections (4), (5) and (6).13:03:009716Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I would like to speak on a couple of issues relating to this bill. I support the introduction of this bill by the government and also support the amendment that has been moved. I believe the outcomes of this bill will assist to alleviate some of the incidents that have actually happened in North Queensland in recent times.To my knowledge, on one occasion our surveillance people were aware of a ship in the vicinity of North Queensland but were unable to board that ship or impound any of the goods or people on it. From my reading of the Bills Digest, the bill will give Customs officers the ability to board vessels that are within 500 metres of an Australian resource installation or Australian sea installation and also to board foreign ships within the outer limits of the territorial sea and ships in the contiguous zone.The illegal landing of foreigners in North Queensland has been of considerable concern, particularly to the people who live in those areas. I believe that it is the government's intention that this bill will not only assist officers to be able to board vessels, whereas before they had to wait until those vessels actually grounded and then try to round up the people, but also give officers the ability to seize arms or illicit drugs on those vessels. I commend the government for introducing this bill.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendment; report adopted.9717Bill (on motion by Senator Patterson) read a third time.Bills9717r9059717Debate resumed from 22 September, on motion by Senator Patterson:That this bill be now read a second time.13:06:009717Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Border Interception) Bill 1999 seeks to give added protection to the Olympic Games movement in Sydney. I have seen you running through Sydney, Mr Acting Deputy President Campbell. It is not too late to set your sights on the Olympic Games.This legislation is tied up with the whole concept of intellectual property. It is good to see that intellectual property is given protection. Perhaps we ought to give more protection than we presently do to intellectual property outside the Olympic Games. It has often been said in this place and elsewhere that intellectual property is the way forward to the future. The protection we give to the intellectual property connected with the Olympic Games ought to be the sort of protection we give to intellectual property generally.In this context, I cannot resist pointing out a report that was done in this general area in 1995 by the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee. It was during that inquiry that the new system of Senate committees came in. The new system came in on 10 October 1995, as the Deputy Clerk will well remember. Like all their works, it was seminal at that time.1X4WESTSenator West—A few of us remember.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—As Senator West says, a few of us do remember. If more people remembered and took regard of reports like this, this legislation would have been passed with enthusiasm. In any event, the opposition supports this legislation.13:09:009717Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Border Interception) Bill 1999 will improve the protection available to the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games and the Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee against imported goods that seek to ambush their marketing activities. It will also improve the protection available to owners of registered trademarks against imported goods that bear infringing marks. I thank Senator Cooney for his brief comments. I am pleased that this bill has attracted broad support, especially in the final year leading up to the Sydney 2000 Games. I commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills9718r8719718Debate resumed from 30 September, on motion by Senator Newman:That this bill be now read a second time.13:11:009718Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—The opposition supports this Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 . It deals with machinery matters, all of which are very important but not the sorts of things that you storm the barricades about. I notice, for example, that in schedule 3 the word `agent' is going to be deleted and the word `broker' put in. That is of great importance. In addition, in schedule 1 they are going to introduce a legislative option for an electronic lodgment and payments system for refunds of customs duty. That indicates how things will go. While it is an interesting bill, it is not the sort of one that you would make inspired speeches about, so I will not.13:12:009718Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—Senator Cooney, I think that you and I should just do these non-controversial bills with Senator Murray and we would speed up the process of legislation enormously. I thank Senator Cooney for his very succinct speech. I have to agree with you that it is not something that you could make a passionate speech about. The Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 proposes to amend the Customs Act in three separate areas. Those areas are: the introduction of an electronic lodgment and payments system for refunds of customs duty, the introduction of a deferral facility and the extension from one year to three years for customs agent licences. I am sure it excites those who are involved, but they are not controversial changes and they are supported by the industry. I commend the bill to honourable senators.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills9718r9149718Debate resumed.13:14:009718O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—When the message from the House of Representatives came to this chamber this morning, there was some banter about this being fishy legislation. I was guilty of that, as was Senator Ian Campbell. There is nothing flippant about the legislation because there are three main purposes of the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . The first is to provide for more effective enforcement against foreign vessels and foreign nationals engaging in illegal fishing within Australian waters. The second is to implement a range of legislative measures that will allow Australia to ratify the agreement for the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to the conservation and management of straddle stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. The third is to allow Australia to participate in regional fisheries management organisations under the fish stocks agreement.The bill consists of two schedules. The first relates to new forfeiture and enforcement powers to combat illegal foreign fishing. These measures are aimed at ensuring more efficient fisheries surveillance and enforcement within the Australian fishing zone. The second relates to implementing obligations necessary to ratify the above convention. Both schedules address the growing use of illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing. The issue of illegal fishing in Australian waters has unfortunately been an ongoing and increasing problem, and for that reason the opposition is happy to support this bill.The fishing industry in Australia is a key primary industry, particularly in regional areas such as the state of Tasmania. It is also an industry that continues to grow in importance. Recent surveys of fish consumption in Australia indicate an increase in consumption of some 13 per cent since 1991. Australian exports have also risen over the past decade from about $783 million to just under $1.5 billion. That remarkable export performance is built around our highly prized and highly priced shellfish and other fish sold at a premium into the Asian markets in Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan and China. Tuna, abalone, crabs, prawns, scallops and rock lobsters are all in increasing demand in those markets. It is important to note that these past growth patterns and export performance can only be sustained if these key fisheries are managed in a sustainable manner. A number of these fisheries are very susceptible to overfishing, and the problem of illegal fishing only exacerbates that problem. We are therefore happy to support this bill.13:17:009719Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—Having a personal history of working within the fishing industry, I have a particular interest in such matters. I am pleased to report that the Democrats do support this bill, the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 , for the following reasons. Conservation groups, the fishing industry and the general community have expressed a strong interest and concern in the issues of unsustainable high seas fishing and illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, particularly as they affect Australia's living resources. I recall—I think it was only my first week here in the Senate—when orange roughie was fish of the day—if you will forgive me for saying that. Not only is it a practice which is decimating fish stocks around the world; it is also a practice which is threatening the viability of the Australian fishing industry.This bill provides for far more effective enforcement against foreign vessels and foreign nationals engaging in illegal fishing within Australian waters. It will greatly aid the Australian fishing industry and, in significantly increasing the powers of fisheries to detain illegal vessels, it will provide significant protection for those depleting fish stocks. Firstly, as Senator O'Brien said, it will change the current conviction based scheme for illegal foreign fishers to one which is based on the automatic forfeiture of vessels, gear and catch of illegal foreign fishers apprehended in Australian waters—not only commercial fishers but also recreational fishers. Secondly, it will ensure that the automatic forfeiture regime for foreign fishers will prevail over the Admiralty Act 1988. Thirdly, it will strengthen the powers of fisheries officers to detain and deal with illegal foreign vessels, including use of reasonable force. For example, they will have explicit powers consistent with international law to use reasonable force when requiring a boat to stop to apprehend foreign boats suspected of illegal fishing. Examples of reasonable force could include firing at or into a ship after appropriate warning shots have been fired and using devices to stop propulsion of the boat. Finally, fines for such offences will be doubled with top penalties now rising to $550,000.In relation to endangered species, the mechanism exists for listing under the CITES convention through appendix 2 of that convention. CITES is, of course, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. The CITES convention protects wildlife against overexploitation to prevent international trade from threatening species with extinction. This listing has been supported by both the Humane Society International and Greenpeace with regard to the Commonwealth government nominating southern bluefin tuna, orange roughie and Patagonian toothfish for listing at the CITES meeting in the year 2000.In November 1998, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill, and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. Mark Vaile, stated that if CCAMLR—that is, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources—is not prepared to move on Australia's proposals to stop illegal fishing of the Patagonian toothfish, Australia will `assess the role for other international fora such as the CITES convention'. I am confident that the Australian Democrats would be fully supportive of a CITES listing for those species.A listing on appendix 2 of the CITES convention does not mean that commercial fishing would be banned or the trade of the products of such fishery, rather that they would be regulated under the CITES convention. The export of products of such species would require a management plan to be developed under the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 in a similar manner to which the export of kangaroo products is conducted.CITES is an international tool to keep illegal fishing and its profits under control. We Democrats would certainly welcome this additional tool, which would further strengthen this bill. However, we note that the government must be prepared to deliver a submission to CITES on this matter before the closing date of 12 November this year—less than one month away—otherwise this opportunity would be lost. So, in supporting this bill, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if, when she rises to her feet in a moment, she can please explain why it is that the government appears to be dragging its feet on that proposal.13:21:009720Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I would like to thank senators for their contribution to the debate. Senator Greig, I hope to deal with that point that you raised before I finish. The Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 comes at a time when the issues of illegal and unregulated fishing are receiving a considerable amount of community attention and concern—and rightly so. Australia has the third largest fishing zone in the world. A lot of that zone is isolated and it has therefore been easier for people to make illegal use of our zone. It is a real challenge to adequately supervise such a large fishing area. We have some very valuable fishing stocks in Australia, and these are a considerable degree of attraction to rogue fishing operators, who are looking to free ride off the efforts of Australia to manage its fishing resources sustainably.This bill will strengthen Australia's powers to manage and protect these resources, and there are two particular initiatives that I would like to mention. Schedule 1 has measures for more effective enforcement against those illegal foreign fishing operations and will provide for greater deterrents for those seeking to take fish from our waters. The second, dealt with in schedule 2, allows for the implementation of the United Nations fish stocks agreement that provides for more effective management of straddling and highly migratory species, many of which are found in Australian waters.The deterrence measures were developed as a result of the experience in apprehending a vessel poaching Patagonian toothfish in the subantarctic Heard and McDonald islands areas and also from the apprehension of significant numbers of boats to Australia's north. Obviously when you have to travel a very long way over several days, as one did in the Antarctic to apprehend the vessel, it has to be done with equipment that is capable of making such a journey and in secrecy to make sure that the vessels do not abscond in the time that is available for us to reach those isolated areas. Our success in that regard in the Antarctic and Heard and McDonald island areas was somewhat mitigated when the law proved not adequate to enable us to impose the maximum possible penalty, including forfeiture. This legislation removes that loophole provided by the Admiralty Act and should give illegal operators and financiers of their operations, particularly sophisticated fishers from distant water fishing nations, something more to think about.Schedule 1 also enables the government to put into place new provisions to allow Australia to take action against mother ships located outside the Australian fishing zone but supporting illegal fishing activities within that zone. These mother ships are increasingly prevalent in international waters and their large capacity to process and store fish makes them an extreme threat to responsible and sustainable management of our fish resources.The bill also allows, for the first time, fisheries officers the capacity to take strong enforcement action and to use reasonable force, including firing at vessels and taking other necessary action. The bill provides for building on current efforts to manage straddling and highly migratory stocks on a regional basis. It supports cooperative regional management and creates a legal framework for the implementation of regional fisheries management arrangements.The ratification of the fish stocks agreement by Australia and participation in regional fisheries organisations will help secure access to fish resources both within and outside the Australian fishing zone. Regional fisheries organisations will be responsible for devising cooperative measures to conserve and manage the relevant regional stocks. This regime will be legally binding on members, who will be required to abide by these measures or refrain from participating in the fisheries, and members of these organisations will have the right to enforce these measures on the other parties to the agreement. Currently, the value of the straddling and highly migratory species to the Australian economy is over $250 million. Given the importance of these species to employment in many coastal communities around Australia, the bill will ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of these valuable fish species important for environmental and economic viability of our regions.At this point I want to acknowledge the support that the government has received from industry. Industry sees the benefit of stronger resource security and sustainability offered by the implementation of the fish stocks agreement. This bill is not the only action the government is taking in relation to ensuring better management of our fish stocks. We have the oceans policy; we have ongoing work in the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, particularly current work on a trade certification for toothfish; we have our much publicised efforts in the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna; our ongoing action in the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea to bring Japan to account for its unilateral experimental fishing program; we have ongoing work in the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission; we have current negotiations for the development of a regional fisheries agreement in the western and southern Pacific; we have our commitment of $16.3 million to increasing surveillance and enforcement measures in the subantarctic; and we have our work to ensure that the issues of fishery subsidies are discussed in a new round of world trade negotiations. These are all examples of the government's commitment to conservation and sustainable management of our diverse fisheries resources.Lastly, Senator Greig, I refer to the question you asked me earlier. The fish stocks agreement legislation allows for strengthening regional organisations such as the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources—also, I believe, known as CCAMLR. In CCAMLR a fish certification system is well advanced after intercessional meetings this year, and it is expected that this certification regime may be adopted in the CCAMLR meeting later this year. In the southern bluefin tuna context, catch certification is also well advanced, and where these specific regional organisations have designed trade catch certification processes CITES control may not be so necessary. I hope that answers your question, Senator Greig.To briefly sum up, the government has made strong efforts in this legislation to pursue strong action to support the sustainability of our fisheries resources, backed by international law. The passage of the bill will send a clear message to those foreign fishers, who might now think twice about fishing illegally. As well, it provides real benefits for the conservation of marine resources in Australia and also the future viability of our very important fishery industry. I commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Sitting suspended from 1.31 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Questions Without Notice972197219721Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—My question without notice is to Senator Ellison, representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of this morning's stampede of the Prime Minister and his ministers to distance themselves from their colleague Dr David Kemp and his cabinet submission on higher education? As the minister representing Dr Kemp in the Senate, will the minister also publicly repudiate his colleague?9722Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—At the outset, there is absolutely no distance between the Prime Minister and Dr Kemp. They are of one accord on this. The Prime Minister himself has totally rejected the scare campaign of the opposition over there, who are trying to scare Australian students into believing that we are going to go down the American path. The Prime Minister has said that we will not do that. The Prime Minister has said that we will stick by our commitments and he has ruled out a voucher system. He has said that we will stick with the HECS system. In fact, there is even a proposal to expand it.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Is that the same commitment as with the GST?9X5Senator ELLISON—The opposition obviously do not want to hear this because they want to beat this question up. They want to scare the Australian public into believing that we are going down the path of introducing vouchers—the American system. The Prime Minister has totally rejected that. We will stand by our commitments—commitments to increase tertiary education in this country. In fact, under the coalition we have increased the number of students who have access to undergraduate university education. In 1999 there will be over 13,000 more Commonwealth fully subsidised places than there were in the last year of Labor. In just over three short years we have increased by over 13,000 the number of Commonwealth funded places for university students in this country.There is other good news in relation to the tertiary education sector. Can I just point out—the opposition do not want to hear this—that university enrolments in 1999 have reached a record high, with just under 30,000 more students enrolling in 1999 than in the last year of Labor. That spells out to the people of Australia that this government is doing great things for those students who want to engage in tertiary education. What Senator Carr is trying to do with this question is just beat up the situation and try and scare people into thinking that we are going to do something that we are not.9722Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that you say the Prime Minister has ruled out vouchers, can you confirm that on 17 April 1998 Dr Kemp issued a statement setting out unequivocally that the Howard government had:. . . no intention of introducing vouchers for post-secondary education or deregulating university fees.In light of the fact that the leaked cabinet submission proposes exactly that, what possible credibility can Dr Kemp have—or the Prime Minister have, for that matter—having stated as they have today that these proposals are not on the government's agenda?9722Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Senator Carr should not premise his question on an absolutely false assumption.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Are you saying it is not true?9X5Senator ELLISON—And a number of them, I might add. What he said is that this is a cabinet submission. They will not even table the document. Why won't you table the document? Because you are saying that this is a cabinet submission.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Ellison, address your remarks through the chair.9X5Senator ELLISON—Madam President, why will they not table this document if it is so authentic? They will not. That reveals them for what they are—scaremongers.97229722Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—My question without notice is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Will the Assistant Treasurer inform the Senate about comments made by the Secretary-General of the OECD, Mr Donald Johnston, regarding the Australian economy and the government's taxation reform proposals?9722Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you for that question, Senator. It is a very important question and a most interesting question. On his current visit to Australia, the OECD's Secretary-General, Mr Donald Johnston, made some very favourable comments regarding the Australia economy and the economic management of this economy. He said:Australia's performance has been remarkably good. There has been strong domestic demand. It has far exceeded expectations.He was asked by a reporter if the success can be attributed to government policies. He replied:Well, they are absolutely fundamental to it. You can't have this kind of economic performance without good governance.How right he is. The coalition made a commitment in the 1996 election and reaffirmed in the 1998 election it would provide good, strong, sensible government. This is what we have done by introducing a simpler, fairer and modern personal and indirect taxation system which will come into effect on 1 July 2000, combined with massive personal income tax cuts. With these personal tax cuts, many families will see an extra $40 to $50 a week in their pay packets.Mr Johnston of the OECD further warns—an interesting warning—that complacency could be the greatest enemy of all. We agree with him. That is why the government are continuing to push forward with their major reform agenda. The next aspect of this reform agenda is the business tax system.In the review of business taxation, we will give Australia a company tax rate that is internationally competitive at 30 per cent—lower than Canada, Japan, the USA and many other of our major trading partners. We will cut capital gains tax and introduce rollover relief for scrip for scrip takeovers, remembering of course that 77 per cent of taxpayers paying capital gains tax earn under $50,000. Mr Johnston commented on this issue too, saying:Countries have to strike a balance between tax on capital, consumption and income. I think Australia's proposals are trying to achieve that balance.In short, the government's plans to reform business taxation in Australia will create an environment for achieving higher growth in the economy, improved savings and more jobs. We note that since March 1996 more than half a million new jobs have been created in this economy.9723Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, would you advise the Senate if there have been any further comments regarding our good economic position?9723Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—There do happen to be some further comments which I think it would be of interest to the people in the Senate to learn about. In today's Adelaide Advertiser , I notice that a seminar in Adelaide yesterday—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The level of noise in the chamber in unacceptably high.WW4Senator KEMP—As I was saying, in today's Adelaide Advertiser a KPMG executive has heaped glowing praise on the Ralph report. In fact, it was described as being a huge stride in the right direction. Further, it was reported:`The proposals would benefit business primarily through lower corporate tax and reforms for small business,' Mr David Sharp of KPMG said.At an Ord Minnett seminar, also in Adelaide, the message was that business tax reform was likely to deliver more incentives to work, save and invest. Once again, the heat is on the Labor Party on business tax—(Time expired)97239723Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is also directed to Senator Ellison, the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. In line with the Prime Minister's denials this morning, can the minister confirm that, on 16 September last year, the Prime Minister also absolutely ruled out vouchers for higher education? Isn't it the case that the leaked cabinet submission is actually the second step in this process and that cabinet had first considered the issue of higher education on 28 June this year, when it requested that Dr Kemp return with more detail? Given that the Prime Minister had unequivocally ruled out consideration of vouchers during the election campaign last year, why did he allow cabinet to consider that exact issue in June this year? Why did he allow Dr Kemp to progress the issues which would directly contradict his commitment to the Australian people?9723Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Senator Faulkner might not realise it but the Prime Minister has just reiterated his commitment in the other place to no vouchers, and that is the situation. That is the answer: there will be no vouchers. The Prime Minister is standing by his commitment. I might just say that if the opposition are going to persist with this so-called document—they call it a cabinet submission—why don't they table it? They will not, because if it was genuine they would. Let us see them table it. Madam President, there is absolutely no point to Senator Faulkner's question and he knows it.9724Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. In light of the Prime Minister's breaking of his September 1998 commitment by allowing Dr Kemp to progress his cabinet submission, what possible credibility do the Prime Minister's latest denials that you are parroting in the chamber today have? The Prime Minister has broken the very same commitment before; the Prime Minister has got form on this issue. Why shouldn't we expect him to do exactly the same thing again—break his word again?9724Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—For the second time, in September last year the Prime Minister said, `No vouchers.' Today, on 14 October this year, he said, `No vouchers.' That is it.97249724Mason, Sen BrettSenator MASON84MQLDLP10—My question is to Senator Ian Macdonald, the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government. Given the importance of access to higher education by students living in regional areas of Australia, would the minister please provide details of our government's initiatives in this area?9724Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I thank Senator Mason very much for that question. Coming from higher education as he does, he is obviously very interested in the way that the Howard government has assisted people, particularly from rural and regional Australia, to take on higher education. I am particularly pleased to be able to report that, in recent times, as a result of the work of the Howard government and Dr Kemp in particular, the number of people from rural and isolated backgrounds entering higher education has increased substantially from about 40,000 in 1990 to about 49,000.Our government and Dr Kemp have provided considerable moneys for higher education in rural Australia. We have provided some $13.2 million to the University of New South Wales for a clinical school at Wagga Wagga. We have also provided support for the establishment of seven university departments of rural health in many parts of rural and regional Australia, including Mount Isa in my state, Whyalla, Launceston, Broken Hill, Geraldton, Shepparton and Alice Springs. The Howard government have provided a remote area allowance for students from remote Australia of up to $17.50 per fortnight to help people from country Australia get into universities, and that is on top of the Youth Allowance and Austudy.One initiative that I am particularly grateful to Dr Kemp and Dr Wooldridge for is the medical school at James Cook University in Townsville and Cairns. That was an initiative that the Labor Party promised at every election for about the last 20 years. I remember it was promised in the time when Bill Hayden was around. It was promised before the election, thrown aside after the election. Unlike the Labor Party, we do have a commitment to education in regional Australia, and the Howard government has provided in cash $10 million for a medical school at James Cook University. My colleague Peter Lindsay, the member for Herbert, has been like a terrier on that and he has done a magnificent job in getting that school there. Not only are we providing some $10 million for the medical school, but also we are providing recurrent funding so that students can start medical courses in Townsville next year. That is a fantastic initiative, and it also helps rural and regional Australia, because students who are from the country and study outside the capital cities are more likely to return to the regional areas.As opposed to what we have done, Labor has no policies. You may remember Mark Latham, Madam President. He was the man on the Labor side that you will remember because he had a policy, and because of that he had to resign. Do you remember the name? He had to resign because he had a policy. He, of course, said that Labor would be: `Replacing HECS with a whole new graduate contribution scheme.' That is what he said in the last election. Do you remember that? No comment. He did withdraw that later in the same day, but it clearly indicated the way that Labor was approaching this. We say this to Labor: we have policies, we have put them into action and we have assisted rural and regional students. Where are Labor's initiatives in this area? (Time expired)97259725Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—My question without notice is to Senator Hill, representing the Prime Minister. Does the minister recall the guarantee he gave to the third annual meeting of deputy and pro-vice-chancellors at the ANU on 1 November 1995, when he said:We will not introduce a voucher type system, and we will continue direct funding of institutions. We will also continue the HECS structure as an appropriate students' contribution to the cost of the students' education. Undergraduate degrees will continue to be funded as at present.With the revelations in the cabinet submission leaked yesterday regarding the Howard government's proposals for the introduction of vouchers for use in public and private institutions, and the revelation that the cabinet had already considered these matters on 28 June this year, does the minister also agree that no guarantee, no commitment or promise, from any member of John Howard's frontbench could ever be taken at face value by anyone, university vice-chancellors included?9725Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I am heartened to learn that Senator Carr has read my speeches of 1995, and I hope he found them enlightening and helpful. I recall those speeches and the higher education policy that I developed in conjunction with those speeches, and it was an excellent policy. It helped us into government at the 1996 election, and I am pleased that much of that policy has now been implemented.I also remember a little of the Labor Party's record on higher education when they were in government. I remember that, in 1995, the year to which Senator Carr refers, 23,200 qualified students were turned away from Australian higher education institutions because of a shortage of publicly funded places. That was the Labor Party's record in 1995—a record that disappointed tens of thousands of would-be Australian students. I also remember that student assistance under Austudy was reduced by Labor—$35 million over four years—in the May 1995 budget. They had less places for students and they cut Austudy for students. This is the Labor Party record that we can remember also. I also remember that research infrastructure, including library services, was run down to record low levels.These were some of the points that I suspect I would have also made, Senator Carr, in that speech of 1995. Perhaps you might table it so that we can all refresh our memories of the detail of it. If, of course, I was writing that speech today, I would be talking about some of the achievements that have occurred since then. For example, in 1999, this year, domestic undergraduate places totalled 398,500—up by 26,000; a 7 per cent increase. More students than ever before are now able to obtain higher education under this government.I would remind Senator Carr that this year undergraduate places—totalling 364,400—have also increased some 3.5 per cent over Labor's 1996 figures. In 1999, estimated total university revenue is $8,675 million—4.5 per cent higher than when Labor was in office. I could go on. Record numbers of overseas students are also voting for the Howard higher education record by wanting to come and study under this government's policies. And it is fantastic—Senator Herron mentioned it the other day—that some 7,789 indigenous students are now studying at tertiary level, 12 per cent higher than when Labor was in government. Rural students increased by 6.9 per cent. Disabled students increased by 17 per cent. This is Australian students voting on the Howard government's higher education record.Yes, I remember what we said in 1995, and I realise what the Howard government have delivered since then is supported so strongly by students. It is true, promises that were made in relation to no vouchers have been kept and will be kept—repeated by the Prime Minister today. The government will not introduce a United States deregulated type system. As repeated by Mr Howard today, we are a government that keep our promises. (Time expired)9726Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the Prime Minister's repudiation of Dr Kemp and his proposals for the deregulation of university fees and the introduction of vouchers, will the Prime Minister now also rule out the introduction of student loans at commercial rates?9726Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—If you want to ask the Prime Minister, ask the Prime Minister, but I will tell you that it is about time we saw an alternative. It is easy to criticise. We got a hint of an alternative today, though. Michael Lee was reported on AAP: the ALP would create university places with tax. So here we go again. Mr Beazley said this morning, `The answer is to spend more money.' Mr Lee said this morning, `The answer is to put up taxes.'5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I do not know what question Senator Hill is answering but it is not the one that was asked by Senator Carr, which asked directly whether the Prime Minister—in this case the Minister representing the Prime Minister—would rule out the introduction of student loans at commercial rates. That is the supplementary question. That is what Senator Hill, representing the Prime Minister in this chamber, is required to answer. I would ask you to direct him to do so.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The minister is dealing with the issue that has been raised in the question. It may not be precisely as you want it, but the minister is aware of the question.BH4Senator HILL—Some students take out loans now; some students take out loans and pay HECS up-front. There are a number of different options. But what we do know is that the Labor Party's option is to put up taxes again. It is the same old story. It failed when they were in government. I told you that they could not provide student places, notwithstanding leaving a deficit of over $10 billion. Higher taxes do not work, and it is about time Labor learnt a lesson.97269726Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. I am wondering whether the minister is aware that the University of Melbourne law faculty already charges $72,000 for a two-year private law degree. I am wondering whether the minister also knows that, under the proposals contained in the cabinet submission to deregulate the higher education sector, universities would be able to charge fees this high to students who are currently paying a $22,728 HECS charge for their law degree.Senator Abetz interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my right will cease interjecting so that I can hear the question.3I6Senator STOTT DESPOJA—Does the minister realise that under the proposals in this document a $72,000 law degree, financed with a loan with a fixed interest rate of 7.5 per cent repaid over 15 years, would actually end up costing a student $120,000, excluding bank fees and charges?Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Stott Despoja, I cannot hear you. There are senators on my right making a great deal of noise and I have not been able to hear the last part of the question.3I6Senator STOTT DESPOJA—Does the minister consider it appropriate to impose a $120,000 debt on 17- and 18-year-old students embarking on their education?9726Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—It is no secret that this government allows universities to charge fees for those students who previously were unable to take up a course. I can say that by doing this we have virtually eliminated unmet demand, because what we are doing has provided, in addition to Commonwealth funded positions, more opportunities for Australian students. The opposition when it was in government locked out thousands of Australian students who could have paid a fee. What we have done here is increase the Commonwealth funded positions, which I mentioned earlier, and we have also allowed fee paying students to have the opportunity of a university course. So what we have done is increase access to university.I might just add that Senator Stott Despoja has been a supporter of compulsory student union fees. You know the old saying: no fee, no degree. That is it, because what they support is that if the student does not pay out of their own pocket a student union fee then they cannot enrol for the degrees. I ask you what is fair about that.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Nothing.9X5Senator ELLISON—Thank you, Senator Abetz. Can I say that by our policies we have increased the amount of resources available to universities in this country, not only through funding but through private funding, and we have also done that through tax benefits. Senator Stott Despoja's question has absolutely no point at all. In fact, what it does highlight is the benefits of the government's policy in relation to higher education.9727Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I assume from the minister's answer that he believes it is appropriate to impose a debt of $120,000 on 17- and 18-year-olds starting out on their education. Does the minister realise that this amount of money is more than the average cost of a suburban home in 1966—the year the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs obtained his law degree from the University of Melbourne? It would have cost him approximately $5,444 in today's terms, except I believe he got a scholarship and got it for free. Will the minister reject the proposed loan scheme, as outlined in the cabinet submission, which would force students today into crippling levels of debt and deny many the opportunity to participate in higher education at all?9727Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Prime Minister has today ruled out any deregulation of the fee structure, and that is quite clear. This government does not endorse an American style system.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The level of noise in the chamber is absolutely unacceptable. 9X5Senator ELLISON—This government does not endorse any system where a person would have to mortgage a home to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for fees. What Senator Stott Despoja is doing is scaremongering. She is absolutely beating up the whole question of fees and regulation of fees. The Prime Minister has ruled out a deregulation of fees. That is the end of it.97279727Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. Is the minister aware that, at a Friends of Post-school Options meeting convened in Perth on 2 August, nearly 200 families of disabled young adults unanimously agreed with a motion calling on the Commonwealth to:1. Immediately release new places funding for 1998 school leavers2. Commit to adequate and timely funding for 1999 school leavers3. Reinstate the WA Post-school Options System as operated from 1991-1998 and encourage other states to move their standards up to meet WA's.Can the minister confirm that $10 million of growth funding from the highly successful 1998-99 and 1999-2000 post-school options budget has been withheld to fund yet another trial of case based disability employment services for almost exactly the same target group? Why is the minister failing to support this successful post-school options program?9727Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—There has been an arrangement whereby growth funding for the next two years will be turned to a trial of case based funding. Senator, you may not be aware that disability advocacy groups—consumer groups—are really quite supportive of this because they do see that it has not always been in their best interests or the interests of those for whom they advocate to have block funding going to service providers without any requirement or focus on outcomes for people with disabilities. As the minister responsible for disability employment services, that concerned me because these days most services that are provided through funding from government do have a requirement to demonstrate the outcomes. If we are simply giving money without any focus on good outcomes, we are not advancing the cause of people with disabilities, and that should surely be the priority in our minds.So, as for the last part of your question: yes, there is growth funding for the next two years. I think it is $10 million. It will be turned to a pilot program to focus on people who are trying to have the opportunity to be in the work force to some degree or other, but it will not be money just given to services willy-nilly without any focus on what they achieve—and I am sure you would agree that is a good goal to have. I can see you shaking your head, but that is the purpose.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—It's not willy-nilly; this is an essential, successful program.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Are you talking about MIFS?Senator Chris Evans interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! An exchange across the chamber is not in order.BE4Senator NEWMAN—I am sorry, Madam President, I was just trying to be quite sure what Senator Evans was saying. I answered the second part of the question first. The first part was about the concerns in Western Australia over the ending of a pilot program which was originally intended to run, I think, for—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—seven years.BE4Senator NEWMAN—No, nothing like that. It was a two-year pilot. It was established in July 1996 and we extended the pilot by 18 months in the 1998-99 budget so that it could be fully evaluated.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—It's been running since 1991.BE4Senator NEWMAN—The MIFS project has been running since 1996. The need was to fully evaluate it in the context of other disability employment programs. The community's knowledge that the program was coming to an end apparently led to a rapid acceleration in uptake and, as a result, it has been necessary to close off the pilot to new clients. But the 210 people who have had an assessment but have not yet commenced their action plan will be assisted to complete those plans. Findings from the evaluation of the pilot will inform broader reforms which are already under way within the specialist disability employment programs, which is what I am talking about with the case based funding.The object of that pilot was to trial an approach to assisting people with severe disabilities to prepare for vocational programs. To June 1999 around 42 per cent of those who had left the pilot had done so without completing their program; just over five per cent obtained a work force outcome; just over three per cent, voluntary work; and 34 per cent had gone on to access a vocational program. The pilot is to be completed by 30 June next year and the department and Centrelink will develop an evaluation strategy before that time. The evaluation is expected to be completed by the end of next year. (Time expired)9728Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I suspect the minister might have read from the wrong brief. This is not about the willy-nilly throwing of money at people; this is about a post-school options program that has been in place for years and is servicing young disabled people. What I want to know is this: is it not the case that the case based trial will not be up and running until November? Basically, you said we should focus on people with disabilities—that is what I am trying to do. How can you justify withholding millions of dollars for almost a year while 68 young Western Australian adults with disabilities have languished at home, their social and physical progress deteriorating on a daily basis because of the cuts to that program? That is what I want you to focus on: this particular program and the needs of those young people.9728Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The case based funding trial that Senator Evans seems to have a problem with has been worked up in consultation with the industry, consumers and the department, and we released a paper for consultation with stakeholders. People are supportive of the way ahead of the government. The money that you say has been stockpiled—or whatever you said—is being used for another pilot targeted at people with special needs.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Another pilot?BE4Senator NEWMAN—Yes, it is. I told you that it was a pilot focusing on people with their employment needs and focusing on whether the employment services can do things better for them. I would have thought that would have been something you would have endorsed; I am surprised to find that you do not seem to. The trial will be using growth money for 1998-99 and 1999-2000.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—That wasn't the question.BE4Senator NEWMAN—You have just asked about that funding. Up to $10 million in a full year in 15 high-need regions across Australia—I would have thought that you would have been pleased about that, Senator. I wonder why you are not.97299729Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—My question to the Minister for Family and Community Services is about MIFS. MIFS, of course, is the pilot program to prepare people with disabilities to enter vocational courses. Minister, last month the Senate asked you, as a matter of urgency, to conduct an open and independent assessment review of the pilot program before closing that program. Have you commenced that review? I note your answer along the lines that there will be an evaluation program being developed by your department. Who else will be involved in this review and how can you guarantee that it will be open and independent?9729Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—As Senator Allison would already know, an interim evaluation report was produced in May last year and was circulated widely. The pilot is due to be completed by 30 June next year. The department and Centrelink will develop an evaluation strategy before that time. As I said just now to Senator Evans, that evaluation is expected to be completed by the end of next year.9729Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is it not the case that you promised the employment agency that you would include them in any review and that you have made no contact with that organisation so far? Minister, when are you going to do that, and when can we expect that truly independent review to take place?9729Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am trying to see if there is any further advice on that, Senator, but I do not think that I can bring you up to date on that. I will take it on notice and get it to you as soon as I can.97299729Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. Does the minister recall her comment on ABC Radio's Life Matters on 30 September that:The 32 per cent of mothers with children between the age of 10 and 14 who do not work are either quite wealthy or they have no skills to offer and no confidence to try to be like all other women.Does the minister stand by her statement that mothers who are not in the paid work force either are wealthy or have no skills to offer and no confidence to try to be like other women? What kind of advocate for the status of women would make remarks like this?9729Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—That is exactly what I said, and I will tell you why. I said it because I was looking at the work force patterns of women with dependent children of various ages. I picked out the statistic—which is provided, I think, by the ABS—that 68 per cent of women who have children between the ages of 10 and 14 are in the work force. I was speculating on what the reasons might be that the other 32 per cent of women were not in the work force. Obviously, there is going to be a proportion of women who are comfortably off and do not choose to be in the work force; they do not have the same financial pressure that poorer women have. In addition, there will be people who have had income support and have become welfare dependent after many years on a payment of some kind or other, and there will be people who were not on an income support but have been out of the work force for so long that, having left it many years ago, their skills are no longer relevant to the current employment market. I think it is a very reasonable explanation in trying to work out why there are some women with children in that particular age group who are not in the work force. It is not a question of being judgmental at all.I believe, and this government is very strongly of the view, that women should have a choice about how they order their lives. We will all make different choices at different stages of our lives and at different stages of our families. By the time children are in the 10- to 14-year age group, many women—68 per cent—are now back in the work force. I was speculating about why it is that the other 32 per cent are not. There is no judgmental approach in that; it is simply trying to find reasons. I would be interested to know. I do not think anybody knows what the reason is. If you have some ideas about what it is, I would be interested.The whole purpose of continuing the JET scheme, the Jobs, Education and Training scheme, which was one good program that the Labor Party introduced, was to help women who have been on welfare get back into training, get skills that they can sell to employers and get assistance with child care. At the last election, we announced a new commitment of another $24,000, called the Return to Work program, to help people who had been out of the work force caring for at least two years to upgrade their skills or acquire skills that they had never had before so that they would be more employable and find work more easily. I would think that that was the action of a caring and compassionate government, and I think your question is based on a wilful smear.9730Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Now that the minister has shared patronising and subjective reflections with the Senate, does she care to inform this place whether this is the ministerial attitude which will inform the government's review of welfare?9730Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I have answered that quite substantially—enough for Senator Lundy. 97309730Tchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN86YVicLP10—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Senator Ellison. Will the minister advise the Senate of the Howard government's strong commitment to indigenous education and of Abstudy take-up rates, which indicate the level of participation of indigenous Australians in education.9730Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I thank Senator Tchen for this question because it is a very important area. The opposition might laugh, but certainly the government do not treat this as any laughing matter. I reported earlier to the Senate an increase in the Abstudy take-up rates for the first quarter of this year. I am pleased to tell the Senate that, in relation to the June quarter, there has been an even greater take-up: some 18,254 tertiary students. That is an increase on the previous quarter by just under 2,000 students. That is a very good result indeed. But the government realise that, whilst we are proud of our achievements, there is still much to be done.Abstudy income assistance is just one of the many ways that this government supports the achievements of educational quality for indigenous peoples. It is well known that there are lower take-up rates in relation to education in the indigenous sector than in mainstream Australia, and this has to be addressed. We have revised Abstudy to improve the targeting of assistance to those students in most need and to open up more opportunities for indigenous students to access a wider range of assistance to attain improved educational outcomes. Applications, I might point out, for 1998 rose to 57,985—just under 58,000—compared to 56,692 the previous year. So we can see a consistent increase in the take-up rate.As well as Abstudy, this government has in place a number of other schemes to help indigenous students. We have the Higher Education Support Program, the VET sector funding arrangements, the Indigenous Education Direct Assistance Program and the Indigenous Education and Strategic Initiatives Program. These involve funding of $388 million during this financial year alone. Recently there was some criticism of our Abstudy scheme. The claim that the government was abandoning equity targets for tertiary education is incorrect. The government is committed to achieving equitable and appropriate outcomes for indigenous students. We remain strongly committed to outcomes in the indigenous sector.The latest figures available in 1998 show the number of indigenous people enrolled in the VET sector had almost doubled over recent years. There are now some 44,000 indigenous people enrolled in VET courses, representing almost one in five adults. That is indeed a step in the right direction, but of course we are committed to doing better than that. There is also in our budget of this year a commitment for an additional $16.3 million in the next financial year for indigenous education initiatives and $1.1 billion over the next five years. Added to that, we have a number of initiatives aimed at literacy in the indigenous sector. We believe that literacy should be a target in not only the primary but also the secondary areas because this will lead to higher take-up rates of indigenous students in the primary and secondary sectors and also in the tertiary sector. We have done much in the indigenous education sector. We realise there is much to be done, but we are committed to doing that.9731Tchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN86YVicLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, we understand that former Senator Bob Collins is carrying out a review for the Northern Territory government. Can you inform the Senate whether there is any information in respect of that review?9731Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I have stated previously that Bob Collins, a former Labor senator—and Senator Crossin might want to hear this, coming from the Northern Territory—took a great interest in indigenous education. As a result of his research he said that government measures we were taking `were absolutely on the mark'. I think that that is a ringing endorsement.97319731West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. Does the minister recall admitting in an answer to a question from Senator Crowley in the last sitting week regarding the Continence Aids Assistance Scheme:There have been some problems over the last year with the Continence Aids Assistance Scheme.And:I have been pretty dissatisfied with the arrangements that have been in place and the problems that have occurred . . .Given that the problems with the contractor have been so serious and so longstanding, can the minister explain why the contract was extended in June this year without being put out to tender?9731Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I do not know whether I have anything up to date on that. I would be concerned if there is no update on it for you. I think the answer I have here is very much what I gave you last time, Senator. I will have a look to see whether there is anything new that I can add to that. I gave you a full and detailed answer last time, and I will certainly follow up the detail of your more recent question and see if I can get an answer back to you quickly.9731West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. While the minister is getting some more details, I ask: what is the state of the evaluation program which we were advised during estimates in June this year had been undertaken or commenced? There was going to be at that stage proposals put to you to determine how the next contract should go. This was four months ago. Surely something has happened since then. Also, in light of a press release from a frontbench colleague of the minister that proclaimed that inadequately managed incontinence can have a serious impact on an individual's quality of life and independence, will the minister concede that people with disabilities are entitled to a higher quality service than they are currently enduring from the government's outsourced program, and are at physical and social disadvantage as a result of the decision to bypass the tendering processes?9731Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I certainly will get back to Senator West as soon as I can about this. I know—and she would know, too—that the money under the Continence Aids Assistance Scheme does not go anywhere near providing the total needs of people with incontinence problems. I think something like $450 a year is contributed by the taxpayer to the high cost of that condition. I do know that, because of the problems earlier in the year, there was real concern about people having to buy their aids. I think I said in a letter to you, Senator—I would have thought you had got it fairly recently—that it was believed that there was no expectation that there could be reimbursement to people for moneys that they had expended because it was really a question of them bringing forward the cost that they met during the course of the year anyway and the $450 would still be available for the remainder of the year. (Time expired)97329732Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware that the cabinet submission by Dr Kemp contains the following quotes:Institutions' income will depend directly on their decisions about the level of fees.And:The deregulation of fees will allow the proportion financed by taxpayers to decrease.Is the minister also aware that when asked about these statements on the 7.30 Report last night, Dr Kemp stated:Over time there is always going to be a changing balance between the public and the private contribution and that will depend . . . on the entrepreneurial attitudes of the universities themselves.Does this not indicate that these proposals are about reducing public expenditure on higher education by shifting the cost of education from the public as a whole to the individuals who can afford to pay?9732Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I do not know how many times I have to say it: the question of the deregulation of fees has been ruled out. Senator Stott Despoja and the opposition are still using this so-called cabinet submission, which we still have not seen—no-one is tabling it; they are all relying on it but no-one is coming forward with it—as some sort of a bogus authority. What we have is the minister, Dr Kemp, and the Prime Minister, ruling out the voucher system, ruling out any deregulation of the fee structure and looking at ways of improving access of Australian students to higher education.In relation to universities, we are encouraging them to become more entrepreneurial. Senator Stott Despoja would no doubt realise that a lot of universities across Australia are embarking on partnerships with private enterprise, and to support this we have introduced tax incentives and benefits so that you will get more funding from private sectors for universities. Just in my home state, the University of Western Australia has some remarkable projects under way which are benefiting students in the community at large and which are the product of partnerships between that university and the private sector. We would expect universities to be more entrepreneurial. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. It is part of our policy, and I understand a lot of universities are pursuing this. For the record, let me say this once more—and I hope the opposition and the Democrats are listening: the Prime Minister has ruled out vouchers; he has ruled out deregulation of the fee system.9732Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Are the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs ruling out further deregulation of the higher education sector and vouchers for the life of this parliament or for the period of time they are in government? If these reforms are not about reducing public expenditure, why are the projected savings $800 million?9732Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I know in the other place the Leader of the Opposition has just asked the Prime Minister to undertake that it would never happen, and the Prime Minister said, `You obviously assume that we're going to be in government forever.' The Prime Minister has ruled out these measures for the period that he remains Prime Minister, and that will be for a long time.97339733Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP00—(2.55 p.m.)—My question is to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. Does the minister recall that, in her so-called `seminal' address on welfare reform, she made the following statements about older Australians:One group that especially concerns me is older working age people who have lost their jobs. The pain of restructuring in industry has fallen heavily on their shoulders . . . This is devastating, especially when it affects retirement plans . . . They are often discouraged by overt ageism in the workplace. Our community and our economy are weaker when we lose the valuable contribution these older people can make.Can the minister confirm that one in five APS staff aged 55 and over were made redundant in 1998 and that over the last two years over 2,000 staff aged 55 and over have been sacked from the APS? How many older workers have been pushed out of the minister's own department in the last two years and what has she done to protect the interests of older workers?9733Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I did say that in the speech, and I am glad that the senator highlighted it. I stand by my concerns. I would think that any thinking person would be very concerned about the waste of talent that is currently taking place in Australia. It is more than just the effects of restructuring of businesses that I am concerned about—that, of course, is relevant. What I was really focussing on in that speech at that time was the fact that it is so difficult for those people to get back into work because of what I said is the `ageism' in some workplaces in Australia and the attitude in our country that devalues the experience and skills of older people.I think there is a really strong need in our country to recognise that, in a variety of ways, older people can be brought more thoroughly into a meaningful role in society. I was giving examples, for instance, of mentoring young people and of being heavily involved in community services. I was interested to note when I was in China recently that this is one of the things that has been happening there with older workers; they are moved into community services. I think that they are things we should all be discussing, not fearmongering like the ALP has been doing.9733Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is it not true that in June 1998 less than three per cent of employees in the minister's department were aged 55 and over, while the average across the APS is over six per cent? Is this how the government shows its compassion for older workers? When will the minister match her rhetoric with action on this issue?9733Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I do not know whether that stat is accurate or not, but I do know that we have changed the retirement age requirements so that people can work longer if they wish to. We have introduced a deferred pension plan for people. Our record is there to see.97339733Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—The coalition government has provided substantial real support for Australian women and families.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I have a point of order. This is question time. What we are now hearing is not a question at all but an allegation, a piece of propaganda, about what this so-called government is doing. Question time is being abused as a propaganda forum for the government. If the senator has a question, she should ask it. Those opposite ought not to engage in manipulating question time for propaganda purposes. So, Madam President, my point of order is: would you direct the senator to observe standing orders and ask a question without any unnecessary propaganda preamble?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Cook, there have been a number of questions today, on your side as well, which have had a preamble to them before the question was asked and I have not ruled them out of order. If you wish to rule out all preambles to questions that is a matter that we can look at. There is no point of order.RF4COOKSenator Cook—On that ruling, Madam President: the standing orders are quite explicit about preambles to questions—that questions should not contain preambles; they should be questions. If you are now saying that that is not appropriate, I wonder if this is not a matter that should be referred to the Standing Orders Committee.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—Madam President, on the point of order: what Senator Cook is doing is delivering a devastating indictment of his leader. We, however, are a little more tolerant than that, and I suggest that you simply proceed with the accepted practice. If it has taken Senator Cook so many years to discover where he is between 2 and 3 in the afternoon, then I think you can realise that not much more weight should be given to his submission.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There are many questions that have preambles to them, and they should not have, but it is something that has had some tolerance in the Senate. I am quite happy to rule out all preambles, but it would apply to both sides if that were to be the case.2M6Senator COONAN—The coalition government has provided substantial real support for Australian women and families since coming to government. Will the Minister for Family and Community Services advise the Senate of the government's continued support for women's groups?9734Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am delighted at the question from Senator Coonan because it is one that I would long wait for from the other side. Our government has delivered considerable benefits to Australian women and to their families, and we will continue to do so. I recently announced the funding for three women's organisations to provide national secretariat services under the National Women's Non-government Organisations Funding Program and said at that time that there would be a second round of project grants announced shortly.I am pleased to announce this second round of funding, which was delayed by two weeks at the request of women's organisations. Today's announcement brings to 19 the total number of women's organisations supported by OSW alone. There are, of course, other women's NGOs who are receiving funding from line departments. This second round of funding covers the broad range of women's interests, activities and different population groups. I am proud to know that my govern ment will be supporting these women and their representatives to achieve change and better outcomes for women. We are well aware that women still face barriers in many areas, and these grants will enable women to achieve further advancement in their careers and education and to be more self-sufficient in their retirement. They will enable young women, women in rural areas and women with disabilities to develop leadership skills and enable much needed work on the issues of sexual assault, and young women and pregnancy and parenting.The opposition have claimed that we are not interested in hearing from women who have different opinions from ours. What a nonsense when you see the range and the variety of organisations we are supporting: the National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children, who had very modest occasional funding under Labor; the Older Women's Network; Women with Disabilities Australia; the National Association of Services Against Sexual Assault; Guides Australia, who got big zero funding under Labor; the Foundation for Australian Agricultural Women; the Women's Action Alliance, who got a paltry $8,000 over 13 years of Labor government; Australian Women in Policing; the Association of Women Educators; the Catholic Women's League; Women in Engineering; and Unifem.As well, through the Office of the Status of Women over the coming year we will be providing support for capacity building to four women's organisations who were not successful in the tender process. These organisations are the Australian Federation of University Women; the Muslim Women's Network; the National Women's Justice Coalition; and the Women's Electoral Lobby. Overall, the new funding arrangements will ensure a range of innovative activities to support leadership, training and advocacy in the women's sector, as well as sound policy advice to government on women's affairs.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper . Miscellaneous9735973515:06:009735Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Special Minister of State (Senator Ellison) and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill), to questions without notice asked today, relating to higher education fees.Today Senator Ellison said it all. He exposed the real Howard government policy, that is, `no fee, no degree'. We now have it all spelled out to us: $100,000 per degree is the basis of their new approach to funding higher education in this country. We are told that the Prime Minister and many other members of this government are seeking to walk away from their US style education system and their plans to deregulate university fees. The same approach has been taken as when Dr Kemp said in the past that he would not introduce vouchers—just as Senator Newman claims she has no secret claim to dismantle social security and just as the Prime Minister said he would never ever introduce a GST. The truth is out there for anyone to see. The truth is very simple: this government live by an ideological obsession with the privatisation and deregulation of this industry and the undermining of the capacity of ordinary Australians to enjoy the fruits of a higher education.We see here a government which, when it says that there will be no introduction of an American style system, really means that there will be an introduction of a Kemp style, market driven Australian higher education system. Today we heard from Senator Hill that he would not even seek to rule out the possibility that there would be an introduction of student loans at commercial rates. We have a government which is seeking to introduce a hire—h-i-r-e—education system.The government has based its policy on what it regards as core and non-core policies. We have seen senior Liberals explain to journalists `that Dr Kemp's policy is the skeleton of Fightback rattling in the closet, despite the fact that it was pronounced dead and buried by the coalition back in 1993'. We have really seen the exposure of Dr Kemp, who stands naked as a result of his right wing ideological obsessions which are seeking now to be cloaked in some sort of virtue predicated on an assumption that their system is in crisis—a crisis created by this government, a crisis which results from the profound cuts to education that have been made by this government in recent times.I would have thought that Senator Vanstone would have been saying a great deal more. I am sure she would be distraught to see the difficulties faced by her nemesis, Dr Kemp. I recall that it was Dr Kemp who rose to prominence as a result of his knifing of Senator Vanstone. Right now, Senator Vanstone is probably sending suggestions to the Prime Minister on the types of champagne that might be delivered to Dr Kemp, just as the Prime Minister delivered Senator Vanstone a bottle of champagne shortly before he dumped her. I would say that this is clearly—O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—On a point of order, Madam Deputy President: I fail to see what this has to do with the answer under discussion. Would you redirect the senator back to the issues, please.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—This is a wide-ranging discussion. I call Senator Carr.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—It is quite clear to me that Senator Vanstone may well be the person we should thank for exposing this government's hypocrisy and its pattern of deceit with regard to higher education. Senator Vanstone knows only too well what the practices of this government are in reality: they say one thing, they do another. There is no way that anyone can believe for a moment the assurances given by this government, given their pattern of deceit in so many areas.We have experienced the claims made by this government that they are not undertaking certain policies, when it has been quite apparent on at least two occasions this year, as a result of the documentation that the public has before it, that this government have been considering actions to move towards the deregulation of the university sector, the introduction of oppressive fees and the remov al of any commitment they may have made in previous times. We have before us in written form the fact that this government have sought to introduce a new system of higher education which quite directly benefits those in this community who are already very wealthy and privileged and who will enjoy further advantage as a result of policies which are quite apparently directed at making sure that those who enjoy the fruits of power and privilege in this community will continue to do so.15:12:009736Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—What a waste of five minutes that was, listening to what Senator Carr had to say. I thought he was going to make a serious contribution in relation to educational policy, but talking about champagne between various ministers did not have much at all to do with the answer to the question.Moving to this spurious issue which has been brought up in the last 24 hours, we are faced with the situation of a document which is creating a storm in a teacup. This is not at all government policy that we are talking about. It is a great pity that the press has got into bed with the ALP and scaremongered, as we saw by the headlines today. Those headlines have nothing to do with government policy. These matters have not been discussed by cabinet or by the party. I chair the backbench committee and we certainly have not discussed any of them. This issue has no credibility, but at least it is something we can base some discussion on. By comparison, if we went to the ALP policy cupboard and we opened that cupboard, what would we find?84MMASONSenator Mason—It would be bare.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Quite right, Senator Mason; it would be totally bare. Just like Old Mother Hubbard going to the cupboard to get a bone, we would find nothing in there because there is no ALP policy on this area.The Labor Party were asleep for three years on policy leading up to the last election. They just hoped they would slide in at the end on the GST question without any policies. They did actually have a shadow minister at that time who had a few ideas. That was Mark Latham, who came up with one bright idea one morning and it was gone by the after noon. It was actually an alternative to the HECS system. This was a shadow minister having the temerity to suggest that there should be an alternative to the HECS system. He announced that in the morning and by the afternoon Kim Beazley had stepped in—that other policy free zone—saying, `We can't have something like that. We can't have something that is different.' So that went out the door.Mark Latham found the official policy of the ALP—it was devised by someone else in a back room somewhere—and he was so disgusted that, following the election, he resigned his position. He was a fellow who had a few ideas on education, unlike the current shadow minister for education, Michael Lee, who hasn't got an original idea in his head about the field of education. When he was the Minster for Communications, from 1993 to 1996, I called him the Rip Van Winkle of communications policy. He is now the Rip Van Winkle of education policy.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—You didn't get a laugh then and you don't get one now.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Not from you, Senator—shock and dismay, I would have thought, because you know what I say is true. You are a man, Senator, who has some interest in the field of education. It must dismay you that there is no policy on the ALP side. You have been sitting there for five or six years now—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—We got four.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Well, Senator, I invite you to get up following what I have to say and—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I will.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Good, and outline for us what the ALP policy is. We would love to know what the ALP policy is on education.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Tierney, would you address the Chair, please.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Through you, Madam Deputy President—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—No, to me.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—Through you, Madam Deputy President, I would like to indicate to the senator that he should get to work. If his shadow minister is not going to write the policy, he should get in and write the policy himself because the ALP certainly does not have one.We need to continue to develop ideas in education because we were left with a terrible legacy by the ALP government in this area. I came into the Senate in 1991. At that stage in higher education there were 50,000 people knocking at the gates trying to get in. This was after eight years of Labor control of education policy. Over that time, for a start, fees were brought in. Senator Carr starts his speech today with, `No fees, no degrees'—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—That is Liberal policy.O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—He starts on this issue but, Senator, your government brought in the fees in the first place. Then you increased the number of students and didn't bring in the resources to match. The result of that under the Labor policy was a decline in standards, a decline in the quality of what was delivered, a crisis in the libraries of the country and a run-down in the IT. That is what you left this country. What we have to do now to make up for your legacy of 13 years is come up with some creative ideas to try to improve the state of higher education. If we wait for the Labor Party to come up with that we will not get it, because you are a policy free zone. (Time expired)15:17:009737Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—It is obvious that the government is running scared. The cat is out of the bag and the people of this country, particularly the students, the future university students, those who are about to sit for their HSC, and their families, have now had exposed to them what this government has in store for them in the future. Senator Tierney, in his rambling attempt at defence of this government's position on education, threw out a challenge. The ALP has form in respect of education—great form. You only have to look at some of the people in the ranks of those opposite who have been the beneficiaries of the great improvements that the Labor government made in the 1970s under Gough Whitlam and then in the 1980s under Prime Minister Hawke and then Prime Minister Keating to see what great achievements we produced.For instance, look at people like the former minister for education, Senator Vanstone. She obtained her degree from university at a time when university fees were essentially non-existent—the great reform brought in by the Whitlam government that I and many others have been beneficiaries of. The same applies to the current spokesperson for education in this chamber, Senator Ellison. It is unfortunate that when they were given the job of running or representing the ministry of education they failed dismally.For instance, what was Senator Vanstone's first move as the minister for education when this government came to power in 1996? It was to slash $800 million out of the university sector. When she tried to placate the vice-chancellors—not a noted pro-Labor group of people—who were irate about this government's policies on higher education, what was her response? In terms of university cuts it was: `Why don't you think of a number between about one and 15?' That is how seriously she treated it. And Senator Tierney has the hide to make some wisecrack about champagne, which is very relevant if you look at the record of the previous minister in regard to education policy.But not only did the government do that; they massively increased HECS fees by about 125 per cent. That is what they did for students in this country—so much so that in the next two years there was a significant drop in the number of applications for university places. In 1997 and 1998 there were substantial reductions in applications. Why? Because of the increased costs that this government had imposed upon students together with the problems facing universities because of the massive cuts to their funding. What happened to Senator Vanstone? She couldn't cut it so she was kicked out of the ministry and kicked out of cabinet. I would venture to say that it will not be long before the current minister suffers the same fate, given his proposals for education.What are those proposals? As we have seen exposed, they involve total deregulation of the university sector and forcing the children of the battler families of this country—whom the Prime Minister Howard said he would look after—to pay $100,00 or more to get a university degree.84PHUTCHINSSenator Hutchins—To choose.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—That's right, Senator Hutchins—to have to make choices as to whether they can afford in the future to send their children to university—the dream of every child in this country to get a higher education; the dream of every child and the dream of every parent.You say that this is a beat-up. Well, the only people that are doing the beating up are this government and this minister. They are beating up the families and those students that right now are about to go and sit for the HSC. That is the real scaremongering. You are frightening the living daylights out of them in terms of the policy that you have in store for them. It has taken the exposure of this policy today to demonstrate the real difference between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. We stand for education, for educational opportunity and for equity for Australian children. We have always done it and we have been responsible for the great reforms. You stand for the wealthy and the privileged. (Time expired)15:23:009738Tchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN86YVicLP10—What a sorry spectacle Senator Forshaw made, having to follow the performance of Senator Carr. Senator Carr rather reminded me of a story I heard when I was younger about a veteran newspaper editor who was teaching younger cadets how to write newspaper headlines. He said, `A good editor can always compress the story into one line.' For example, the story of the first part of Exodus, about Moses, could be compressed to say, `Moses opens mouth; bull rushes out.' We could easily substitute Senator Carr for that, for his performance.Senator Hutchins interjecting—656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Don't give up the day job.86YTchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN—No. Stay here and laugh, Senator Forshaw.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Address the chair, please, and ignore the interjections. Senator Hutchins was being totally disorderly. He was not in his place.86YTchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN—Madam Deputy President, you described Senator Carr's comments as being wide ranging. He certainly was wide ranging. Nevertheless, the senators on the other side are to be congratulated because they have managed to bring this particular topic up at this time knowing that there is a more serious debate foreshadowed by the Democrat Senator Stott Despoja. I hope that Senator Carr will be able to improve his performance at that time. Bringing this particular motion up at this point is quite a good move of Senator Carr's. We are talking about higher education in this country. There are two political parties in this country which aspire to be in government, and there is only one party that has a policy in education. The Labor Party does not have an education policy, notwithstanding its rhetoric. We took government three years ago in 1996. Has the Labor Party actually enunciated its education policy yet—on university education, on secondary education, on further education, on any of this? Not at all.You have a shadow minister on education who has managed not to speak on education topics for three years. There is no policy. That is keeping in mind that when Mr Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition in the other house, became Leader of the Opposition, he proclaimed that he was going to be the education prime minister. Yet, all this time, the only policy that the Labor Party actually came up with was, as Senator Tierney mentioned, put up by Mr Mark Latham, who subsequently lost his job. That is his reward for actually coming up with alternative policies.There is a very obvious reason why the Labor Party have no policy at the moment. It is because they are still recovering from 13 years of managing education without a policy. At the time when the Labor Party lost government, there was enormous unmet demand in the community. We heard that in 1991. The Labor government had introduced a fee payment for university education but they had done nothing about funding universities. They encouraged more students to apply for and go to university and then did nothing to improve the situation there. At the time when the Howard government took over, there was unmet demand of at least 40,000 qualified students who could not get places.The Howard government has introduced positive policies. We are determined to make Australia an educated, knowledge based society with opportunity for all, regardless of their financial circumstances and the financial circumstances of their institution. (Time expired)15:28:009739McLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS84LQldALP00—In taking note of answers this afternoon, I wish to reserve my comments to the impact on regional universities, notably in Queensland, of the Kemp proposals we have seen in the last couple of days. When Senator Ellison made his comments today, he omitted to remember this important sector of higher education in Australia—that is, regional universities across our nation. Haven't this government learned the lesson of Victoria—the lesson that all of us have seen in the last three weeks? Haven't they seen what rural Australia will do when they have been forgotten? I suggest that this Kemp model will herald the end of regional universities across this nation. It is not only I and the ALP that recognise that. Mr Mullarvey, the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee Acting Executive Director, said today in the Courier-Mail that if the proposal was embraced and funding to universities was cut it would be a major concern for Australia. He went on to say that under proposed changes newer and regional universities would find it difficult to survive.The phone calls to my office today from Townsville, Cairns, Mackay, Rockhampton and Toowoomba support this view. Let me explain to the government about the characteristics of regional universities.BH4HILLSenator Hill—James Cook has done very well out of this government.84LMcLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS—With the support of the Queensland government, thank you very much. Regional universities, by their nature, have a less wealthy population than universities in the city. They have an older population and they enrol more mature age women. They are emerging in their specialisation. I congratulate the James Cook University on the work that they have done in developing their specialisation. They contribute enormously to their local communities through their participation in the day-to-day operations of the community in which they are placed.Let us look at the impact of the Kemp proposals on regional universities. Because students in regional universities are poorer than their city cousins, they will be even less likely to embark on a university education in the knowledge that they will have a bill of more than $100,000 to pay on graduation. Older students, many of whom are women—more than 40 per cent of students in some of the regional universities in Australia—are far less likely to return to university to improve their employability. They probably have one or two children and have a mortgage and ongoing financial commitments to their families. They are very unlikely to undertake university education in the knowledge that, on completion, they will have to pay back $100,000 or more.Under this government we are moving to a system of haves and have-nots. Regional Australia already suffers under the tyrannies of distance and the higher cost of living. This government is driving the wedge between city and country even further in terms of educational opportunities for regional Australia. This Kemp policy will deny regional Australia access to tertiary education.Let us look further at the impact on the universities themselves. As I have said, regional universities are emerging in their specialisation. They are younger and they are newer—they are establishing themselves. They are struggling to develop their options for students under this government with the incredible cuts they have suffered. They are struggling to develop their research capacity. Come the Kemp model, it is the research arm of those regional universities that will suffer. Regional universities are looking to specialise and carve a niche in the education sector, but what chance will they have to develop those specialisations, as some of our other universities have been able to do?I now turn to the impact on a community that the Kemp model will bring. Regional universities contribute significantly to our regional centres. I know that personally, coming from Cairns and seeing the change in our community when the James Cook University of North Queensland established its campus in our city. It was a wonderful change that that university brought. The contribution of students and staff to general community activities has improved the quality of life in our centre. Under the Kemp model, those universities will not be able to contribute to the broader society of our regional towns, because they will be spending all of their time focused on the business of teaching. Can I suggest that the Kemp model follows the ideology of this government as a whole. It is back to the future. (Time expired)15:33:009740Mason, Sen BrettSenator MASON84MQLDLP10—We have heard from Senator Ellison, the Prime Minister and Dr Kemp that there will be no deregulation of fees and no US style voucher system.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Do you believe them? No-one does in the Labor Party!84MMason, Sen BrettSenator MASON—Senator Carr often misunderstands the politics of the eighties and the nineties. The Left are irrelevant in the nineties. Let me explain why. I had the privilege the other day to address students at QUT, Brisbane. They all accept, down to a student, that they should help with their fees.3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—And they do in this system!84MMason, Sen BrettSenator MASON—That is right. I will get to that in a minute, Senator Stott Despoja. They all accept that they should pay fees. They accept that the government gives them a subsidised tertiary education and that they should contribute to that. All of them believe in the ethic of mutual obligation in tertiary education. Of course, the only ones who gibbered at that were the old Vietnam generation hacks, who sat there going on and on about how dreadful it was. Do you know why? Because the last time this debate came up—the great scare campaign—was back when I was at university. In those days, just before the end of the Fraser government, there was a big debate. The debate was about whether, when tertiary fees were introduced, it would decrease the accessibility of tertiary education for students. That was the argument of the Left and the trendy academics, and they were wrong. What has happened over the last 20 years? Accessibility to tertiary education has increased enormously. It has more than doubled—against every single projection your lot made. Wrong again! The great problem was—and here Senator Carr and I agree, strangely—Senator Carr interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Carr!84MMason, Sen BrettSenator MASON—Senator Carr and I could have walked down Collins Street, Melbourne or, better, Anne Street, Brisbane both with one aim in mind: to increase access to tertiary education for everyone—not just for the children of the middle class. That is what tertiary education was a generation ago and now accessibility has more than doubled. That is the great difference. It has helped enormously in this country.Under the HECS system, tertiary students pay about 30 per cent of their total fees. They still receive subsidy. That is a fair thing; that is a good thing. The question is about how much they pay. I agree with what the minister has said. It is now about right. The current system is a great thing because it has increased access for everyone, and that is a great thing. As Senator Ellison pointed out before, it also enables people to pay fees to enrol in a university course when they would otherwise have missed out even if they qualified. That is a great advantage.It has also enabled universities—and I make no apologies for this—to be much more entrepreneurial and much more flexible. That is also a great thing. The tired, old, leftwing hack view that, somehow, the state is there to provide a teat for all and that people need not give anything back is absolutely dead and finished. That is the difference. It worries me that this is such a time warp. This debate comes back, and all I can hear ringing in my ears is Senator Susan Ryan standing up and suggesting that the whole system would crumble if we had tertiary fees. A great thing—one of the greatest achievements of your government and one of the greatest achievements of our government—is the enormous increase in access to tertiary education. I know it does not accord with left wing views at all—it would not because it is relevant. What is important to the future is this: the quality of tertiary teaching. That is important because at the moment academics are simply talking to each other and not engaging in public debate. That is very important. Also very important is how we are going to fund top-class tertiary education into the next millennium. That is becoming very difficult. We are going to have to do that as well. They are the big questions for the next century—not bleating about scare campaigns being revisited from the 1980s, Senator Carr. You and I agree on one thing for once—that is, that access to tertiary education is all important. You and I should be arm in arm on this question. It is a great pity that once again you are engaging in a bleating scare campaign. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.Question resolved in the affirmative.974115:38:009741Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I seek leave to make a short statement on behalf of Senator Newman.Leave granted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—Senator Newman has had to return to her electorate and she has asked me if I would read something into the Hansard . In answer to a question this afternoon, Senator Newman inadvertently said that the funding under the Return to Work program was $24,000. What she meant to say was that it was $24 million, and she wishes to correct the record.Matters of Urgency9741974110000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 14 October 1999, from Senator Stott Despoja:Dear Madam President,Pursuant to standing order No. 75, I give notice that today I propose to move that, in the opinion of the Senate, the following matter is a matter of urgency: The government's proposal to deregulate the higher education sector, introduce a system of voucher based funding contrary to previous assurances, replace HECS with student loans repayable with a real rate of interest and reduce public expenditure on higher education, excluding thousands of Australians from further education and cutting investment in human capital.Yours sincerely,Natasha Stott DespojaSenator for South Australia.Is the proposal supported?More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.15:40:009741Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move:That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:The government's proposal to deregulate the higher education sector, introduce a system of voucher based funding contrary to previous assurances, replace HECS with student loans repayable with a real rate of interest and reduce public expenditure on higher education, excluding thousands of Australians from further education and cutting investment in human capital.This debate has already commenced with the speakers we have had during the taking note of the answers given to questions today. Today, this debate has come about as a consequence of a leaked document—a cabinet-in-confidence document—the authenticity of which has not been denied by the relevant minister, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr David Kemp. It is written in the first person and it is clearly an articulation of his views—his narrow so-called vision for the higher education sector in this country.The cabinet submission contains largely three proposals: the compete deregulation of university fees—that is, allowing universities to set the fees paid by all students; a voucher driven funding system, whereby students are eligible for some government subsidy but must meet the costs of any gap or top-up fee imposed by the university; and a universal loans scheme to replace HECS, which would have a real rate of interest attached. Currently, HECS interest rates are indexed to the CPI. These are some of the most regressive, anti-student, anti-intellectual proposals we have seen introduced or suggested by a minister for education in this country in its history.The irony is, of course, as has been pointed out in the earlier debate, that many of the ministers in the current government, and indeed a number of backbenchers, have benefited from a system of education that was publicly funded and much more accessible—even Dr David Kemp. He is not even a member of generation HECS; he has benefited from a scholarship, as I understand it, from the University of Melbourne, where he was entitled to pursue a law degree that was taxpayer funded but not contributed to in any individual or private way. Indeed, the former minister for the education portfolio, who did her own burning, slashing and cutting to the education sector, Senator Vanstone, also benefited from a much fairer system of higher education in this country.The government have consistently battered the higher education sector through cuts to resourcing and to staff numbers, failing to actually meet staff and academic wage claim demands. They have cut regional campuses and increased HECS. They have cut student financial assistance and increased the age rate for independent assistance. The government are already guilty of slashing and burning when it comes to the higher education sector. About $1.8 billion worth of cuts were made in 1996, when the government first got into power.We have heard a lot of assurances today from government members. Indeed, the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, who is present in the chamber, and the speakers in the previous debate on the government side suggested that the Prime Minister's comments on television this morning were a sufficient guarantee that the Prime Minister has definitely ruled out further deregulation. I say `further' deregulation because this government, as its predecessor did, has stood over while deregulation has taken place, more recently of undergraduate fee paying places. Before that, under the ALP, the postgraduate sector was deregulated.The Prime Minister has given an assurance not that this will not happen ever but that, presumably, it will not happen within the life of this parliament. So I look forward to hearing again in this place, on record, ministers and members of the government giving us a categorical assurance that there will be no deregulation, no introduction of vouchers and no abolition of HECS. Of course, if it is the abolition of HECS to replace it with a system of publicly funded free education, that would be welcomed by all those who believe that we should have a further investment in higher education—education that is publicly funded and accessible to all.But we cannot really trust this government when it makes such assurances. Today in question time I noticed Senator Carr asked the former education spokesperson for the coalition when they were in opposition, Senator Hill, about some of the assurances he gave on record as to what his political party would do if they got into office. Their election manifesto in 1996 gave assurances that HECS would not be tampered with, that Austudy would not really be affected, that operating grants would not be cut and that regional universities would be protected. What have we seen? As soon as they got into government, within the same year, we saw massive funding cuts and regional and remote institutions hurt more than any other institutions, so much so that this government had to introduce a rescue package in order to cope with the fallout—to stem the flow, if you like.I note that, in this cabinet-in-confidence document, Dr David Kemp has recognised that universities are currently in a `difficult financial position'. We know that. Unfortunately, of course, it is a financial position that has been brought about or perpetuated by the government of the day. Dr David Kemp goes on to state:Already eight institutions appear to be operating at a deficit and some regional campuses are at risk. The current enterprise bargaining round is not giving universities more staffing flexibility . . . Instead of seeing the government come up with some ways of ensuring that more resources are made available or that teaching quality is improved through funding or meeting the wage claims of academic and general staff, we could see the absolute decimation or the abolition of some regional campuses, or indeed some regional institutions, because we know—research tells us and experience shows us—that a voucher system favours those with wealth and with mobility and we know that, under such a system, as Senator McLucas pointed out in the earlier debate, regional and remote campuses will suffer most.There has been a lot of talk about policies and records in the chamber today, and I put on record again the Australian Democrats' position in relation to the funding of higher education. We have always believed, since our inception 22 years ago, that education is an investment; it is not a cost. It is part of a caring, enlightened and compassionate society. It has the opportunity to benefit all, including those who want to be involved in the workplace, regardless of what their age or background is, as well as providing an enlightened and intellectual society. That is the premise for education.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—No fees at all?3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—No fees at all! That is why the Democrats voted against the introduction of the higher education administration charge, the Higher Education Contribution Scheme and the CPI increase of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme in 1991. The Democrats opposed further deregulation of the postgraduate sector and deregulation of undergraduate fees, even with the caps that this government has imposed. We recognise that it is possible, because governments have to make choices, and gutsy governments have to make choices, to invest in things that lead to an environment that is enlightened and democratic. You invest in areas of human capital so that people have the best opportunities—not only so they can pursue further education or get jobs but also so they can have lifestyles that have quality and health. You do that through a progressive taxation system, because already people are contributing through the taxation system to government revenue. They are contributing to education, but increasingly we have seen over the years a fundamental shift in the costs of education, the financing of education, from the public as a whole—recognising that there is that public benefit—to individuals. That is clearly the intent of Dr David Kemp's proposals before us today.Senator Tierney interjecting—3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Yes, I am quite proud and happy to put on record the Australian Democrats' voting record and policy perspectives on these matters. I suspect they are probably reflected among a few backbenchers today—from both sides. At the doorstops and on some of the television coverage this morning I could see backbenchers back-pedalling a mile. I saw Dr Brendan Nelson looking a little perturbed at the prospect of students having to pay $100,000 for a degree.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—That is rubbish!10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Tierney. You are on the speakers list. I would appreciate your remaining silent until it is your turn to speak.O15TIERNEYSenator Tierney—I couldn't contain myself, Madam Deputy President.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Remove yourself from the chamber if you cannot contain yourself.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Madam Deputy President, he is giving me my best stuff, so I appreciate the interjections.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—They are disorderly, Senator Stott Despoja. Please address the chair and ignore his interjections.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—They are indeed disorderly, and I will focus on the matters before us. But I will acknowledge the interjection that suggested that $100,000 was rubbish. As I pointed out in question time today, already students are paying exorbitant amounts in fees. Only a few weeks ago we saw Melbourne University introduce a two- year private law degree for $72,000. Under the proposals before us, as I pointed out in question time today, not only is it possible that $72,000 can be paid for a two-year law degree at an institution, but also, if you finance that with a loan which has a fixed interest rate of 7½ per cent and you repay that over, say, 15 years—but who knows how much longer than that students are going to be condemned to debt—then the total cost, excluding bank fees and charges, is over $120,000. That is what these loans will mean. That is what a fixed interest rate means. That is what happens if you are going to abolish the HECS.It is happening already: students are paying exorbitant amounts, not to mention that this government has increased fees and charges like no other—and that is saying something given the last decade of policy changes to higher education in this country—and hiked them up to a level that does not even make us comparable with Western nations like the United States. We have heard a lot of discussion about the United States in the past 24 hours, but I know that public institutions in America do not have comparable fees, on average, to the kinds of fees that we already have through HECS and up-front undergraduate fees in Australia. In fact, this is very much an attempt by the government to introduce not only parts of the American system—and go further—but also the UK style reforms of vouchers and student loans. I suspect that is where Dr David Kemp is getting some of his so-called inspiration.These proposals are a hybrid of the worst aspects of both of these systems. They would effectively privatise universities, as in the US, and impose crippling debt on students through student loans, as has occurred in the United Kingdom. In Australia's case, according to these proposals, Australians would be forced to repay the loan at a real rate of interest, and they would introduce increased and substantial funding uncertainty to the sector through vouchers.Vouchers apparently have been ruled out by the Prime Minister today, yet we know that the cabinet has already seen the proposed reforms and requested that the minister for education investigate them further, contrary to numerous public assurances that the government would not introduce vouchers. These vouchers, of course, are the idea of student centred funding that we have seen closely examined through the West review. Note that the only relevant term of reference that was not included but should have been in the West review was actually looking at how we can fund our higher education system better through public resources. The issue of public funding was not even touched on in that document. Once again, the government has failed to recognise that there is a public good, a public benefit, as a consequence of education in our society.On fee deregulation, Senator Ellison, representing the minister for education, today has apparently ruled that out, but I do not trust this government, not when it has broken nearly every promise, nearly every assurance, specifically in relation to higher education policy and funding—and not just this minister but also the one who preceded him. I call on the government not only to rule out any move towards a privatised system of funding such as that in the US but also to rule out the UK style reforms of vouchers and student loans.If these cabinet-in-confidence documents are even a glimpse of what this government has countenanced in relation to higher education reform, we will have an education system that once and for all is an elite system for the rich and blocks out the poor. (Time expired)15:53:009744Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Can I say at the outset that the government totally rejects the motion proposed by Senator Stott Despoja, which is based on an entirely false premise, and that is that the government somehow has some proposals to deregulate the higher education sector and introduce a whole system of fanciful measures. The Prime Minister has made the government's position absolutely clear, as has Dr Kemp, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. We have to go no further than the Prime Minister when he was interviewed today and he stated:We have no intention, no intention at all, of introducing an American style approach to universi ty funding in this country. It won't work. It's not good for Australia and it's not something that I can support or would ever support. I make that very clear.Today in question time the Prime Minister reiterated that commitment.In fact, it was the Leader of the Opposition who asked, `Can you guarantee that you will never allow higher education in this country to go down that path?' The Prime Minister replied, `Look, don't be silly. If you are asking me to do that you are assuming I am going to remain Prime Minister forever and this government is going to stay in government forever.' What he did was a very realistic thing. He gave an undertaking that, while he was Prime Minister, he could rule these things out. You can ask for no more or no less. He can give an undertaking only as to what can and will happen while he is Prime Minister, and he did that. He said in this interview today:The other thing I want to make clear is that any decisions the government takes will fully honour the promises made both at the time of the election and previously in relation to vouchers, in relation to deregulation of university fees, and also the commitment we made not to introduce HECS charges for TAFE courses.Those commitments were made quite deliberately and quite explicitly after we got the West review last year.It is well known, and Senator Stott Despoja and members of the opposition know, that we have had the West review around for some time. It is no secret that the government have been looking at ways of improving the higher education sector. We have been looking at ways of increasing access for young Australians—in fact all Australians—to higher education. That is precisely what the government have been doing. The Prime Minister pointed out that, whilst we are always on the lookout for ways to improve the higher education sector, we also had a system which was pretty good and one which was recognised internationally as being so. I cite the headline in the Australian dated 29 September this year: `Overseas students flock to our universities'. It stated:Overseas students have continued to pour into Australian universities despite the Asian crisis, with new international enrolments up 20.5 per cent from last year.That hardly tells the tale of a tertiary education sector in a parlous state. What it tells you is that across the world, internationally, our higher education system is regarded very highly. Of course, what the government are saying is that, whilst we have a good system and whilst it is recognised internationally as such, we still need to look at ways of improving it.But we do have some achievements that we can be proud of. For instance, under the coalition increased numbers of students have had access to undergraduate university education. In 1999, this year, there will be 13,235 more Commonwealth fully subsidised places than there were in the last year of Labor, back in 1996. This will increase to over 15,500 more by the year 2001. That is an increase in Commonwealth funded places for tertiary education students. What we have done as a government is expand the opportunities for universities to operate. We have allowed for fee paying students so that undergraduates who are capable of paying a fee can enter a course of their first choice. We have not only made more resources available to universities but also given more choices to Australians. I ask you, what is wrong with that?We have also allowed the private sector to contribute more to universities. I know that in my home state of Western Australia the University of Western Australia has one of the highest rates of private contribution to a university. It does that by all manner of means, one of them being going into joint ventures with the private sector. What we as a government have got to do is make it more attractive for the private sector to donate and contribute funds to universities, and we have done that with tax incentives. That will encourage industry, for instance, to become more involved with universities. We do want to see universities become more entrepreneurial. Senator Stott Despoja mentioned that today in question time. She asked, `Is it true that this is what you want?' Of course it is. I think most universities would want that too. You want to be forward thinking not only in your research but also in the ways that you can offer courses and opportunities to people and in the ways that you can have support from the private sector.I also mentioned today the advances that we are seeing in indigenous education. In the second quarter of this year from March to June, we saw a jump of just under 2,000 indigenous students in Abstudy take-up rates. That spells good news, going from some 16,000 in the first quarter to 18,000-odd in that second quarter from March to June. So much is happening in the indigenous education sector of tertiary education, and that is something which we as a government are strongly committed to.What is being lost in all this is the assumption that this is all going to happen today, that these aspects of vouchers and deregulation of fees are foregone conclusions. I have mentioned that they have been ruled out by both the minister for education and the Prime Minister, but you still have Senator Stott Despoja saying on Adelaide radio today:I just don't see why the government would embark on this so-called vision, and I'm very concerned about it.I can tell you, Senator Stott Despoja—through the chair—that there is no need to be concerned because it is not happening. It is not happening because the Prime Minister has ruled it out.What we are ruling in is looking at ways to improve access by Australians to tertiary education, and we have had a number of innovations. I could point to the total research funding for higher education being up from $396 million in the last year of Labor to just over $450 million in the financial year 1998-99. What we are doing is increasing funding for research. But, as well is that, we have established the Committee for University Teaching and Staff Development. We recognise the needs of those who are engaged in teaching and lecturing in the tertiary education sector and we have developed that committee to encourage improved teaching. We have also provided the Australian awards for university teaching, to help give greater status to university teaching. These are very important steps in the recognition of those working in the sector.This government has done much in the tertiary education sector and the opposition, before it attacks the government, should look at how it locked out tens of thousands of Australians who wanted to take up a university course but could not. They had the money to pay for a course but they could not take one up, because you had a wholly funded government-set enrolment target. As well as that you had Labor's Higher Education Contribution Scheme, which was unfair because students in courses with lower income prospects paid the same amount as those in courses with higher income prospects. Of course, it was only fair for us to recognise the differences in the incomes that those students would be deriving when qualified. What the community ought to realise and should remember is what Labor did not do and then remember what we have done to increase access for all Australians to tertiary education. I urge all Australians not to succumb to the scaremongering by the Democrats and the opposition. (Time expired)16:02:009746Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—My colleagues Mr Beazley and Mr Lee have done the people of this country a great service by letting them know the horrors planned by this government in its higher education policies. We have been told again here this afternoon by Minister Ellison that this is not a proposal that the government is considering. We are told that there are not plans before the government. What I would ask then is this: what is the situation in regard to this cabinet submission? I would ask the speakers that follow me to explain to me what is the status of the cabinet deliberations. Is it not the case that Dr Kemp was in fact invited by cabinet to prepare this submission? In fact, was it not the case that on 28 June 1999 the cabinet noted cabinet submission No. JH99\0222 where it said:I indicated a preference—these are Dr Kemp's own words—for deregulating admissions and fees as the central elements of a reform—a so-called reform—of higher education and that in the context . . . Cabinet regarded that I come back with further relevant information and with options for workplace reform.If that is the case, what is the status of this document? What is the status of those discussions and the instructions to Dr Kemp to come back with the suggestions? I say that the truth is very simple: the government has been caught out. It has been caught out comprehensively. It has been caught out and its secret plans have now been exposed; its lies and deceit have been exposed.I think that no-one in this country ought to believe the Prime Minister when he now seeks to allege—and I emphasise the word `allege'—that he is promising to abandon Dr Kemp's plan for this American style university system. And I am sure that very few, other than a few clowns in the Liberal Party, will in fact believe him. We were told in question time today by Dr Kemp that he had not even proposed in his own cabinet submission a voucher system. But this document says at 6(b) that they propose a `universal tuition subsidy' which follows the student to accredited higher education courses. What is that? Nothing else could be said other than it is a voucher scheme over which this government is seeking to deceive and mislead. It is attempting to present itself other than in its true guise as an ideologically driven government which has sought to destroy the fundamental principles of social equity that the Labor government had sought to impose upon the education system in this country. Government members will never ever stop until they have achieved that objective.What we are being told is that the government effectively need to respond to what they regard as the havoc in the higher education system. What we have is an audacious attempt by the government to exploit the destruction and the decay which they themselves have introduced, promoted and of course presided over. They have sought to use this as excuse to deliver yet another blow—possibly the final blow—to Australian universities and students.What they are seeking to do is to establish that there is a crisis in higher education, a crisis which I say is very much of their own making. The realities have to be explained. This afternoon Senator Hill failed to point out a few basic facts that characterise this government's higher education policy. None of us should ever forget that in the 1996 budget this government cut discretionary funding to universities by $216 million, that universities had their operating grant funding cut by $624 million and that student income support measures were cut by $500 million. It has introduced changes to the Higher Education Contribution Scheme already by increasing charges by $313 million. It has lowered the repayments threshold to many thousands of dollars below average weekly earnings, thus taking a further $817 million from students and graduates.So what you have is a claim by this government that the system is in crisis. It is a crisis that they themselves have created and, as a consequence, they then need to take action to remedy the situation. What of course is happening is that this government are seeking to use that as an excuse to advance the very crisis that they have created. We have noticed already that this government have overseen a situation where the level of demand for higher education is falling. It is falling under this government because this is exactly what the government seek to achieve. They seek to achieve a situation where the people who can least afford it—that is in both financial terms and their place within society—are given fewer opportunities to participate in the higher education system. It has to be remembered that under this government 21,000 fewer public funded places were at the core of those cuts in 1996. That is, 21,000 fewer opportunities for Australians to participate as a result of this government's action of withdrawing support for public education in this country.When we look at the government's policy, we notice that students are turning away from universities because this government have sought to increase the price of attendance at university. They then go on with this sort of proposal where we will see the possibility that the charges and fees, imposed by the universities themselves, will rise up to $100,000. Who could possibly afford that? The current charges of universities have increased dramatically. Some students are already paying $5,000 or $6,000 for courses. Others are paying between $4,400 and $4,800. This is their HECS fee, their HECS contribution under this government. This is already far too high for many students. In fact, 15,000 would-be students, who might well have been inspired to go to university under the former Labor government, are not able to do so under this government—15,000 fewer people may not have been able to achieve their aspirations as a result of this government's policies already.We note that the government seeks to go further. They seek the deregulation of fees which would allow universities to charge whatever they like. Currently, the University of Melbourne charges more than $30,000 for an MBA degree. In the postgraduate arena, fees have been a feature for some time. If commercial rates of interest are applied to loans to pay those sorts of fees, you are likely to see amounts of $100,000 being quite common. What family could possibly afford such an impost? What sorts of opportunities would that really leave for ordinary Australians—middle and lower income Australians—to participate in universities. The University of Melbourne can afford to charge premium rates. It seeks to use its brand name, its prestige and its illustrious history—an illustrious history built up on 150 years of quality public investment. It is now seeking to use that reputation in the marketplace, so that the rich and those lucky enough to receive generous financial support from wealthy corporate employers are able to participate in such programs as Melbourne MBAs.We are likely to see fewer unemployed people and fewer people involved in small community organisations or charities being able to afford those sorts of fees and imposts. How many ordinary Australians will be able to fork out similar amounts of money to study at Melbourne University or Sydney University or any of the other universities that are at the commanding heights of the Australian education environment? These universities, which will be able to charge fees in the order of $20,000 or $30,000, or maybe more, to secure students from the right sorts of families which can afford to pay those fees and from the right social milieu, will be perpetuating an elitist 1950s concept of what university is supposed to be all about.When we see Dr Kemp talk about the crisis in the education system, bear in mind it is Dr Kemp and his cronies who have created the crisis. They create the crisis so that they can impose their solution—a solution predicated on the assumption that only some Australians should be privileged enough to enjoy the benefit of an education at the highest level in this country. Regional universities and some of the newer universities are going to be increasingly strapped for cash. Dr Kemp acknowledges this in his cabinet submission. I quote:Universities are currently in a difficult financial position . . . Already eight institutions appear to be operating at a deficit and some regional campuses are at great risk.How is it possible that such universities are going to survive under a deregulated regime? They are already desperate; they are already facing enormous pressure as a result of the changes that he has imposed. What is going to happen to universities in Ballarat, Armidale, Townsville and Rockhampton? What is going to happen to their regional economies? What is going to happen to the opportunities that they currently provide for families in those regions? What sort of environment would be created if people in those areas cannot go to university? What sort of social inequality will be encouraged by this government? These smaller universities—the jewels in the crown of regional Australia—could very well be pushed to the wall. They will not be able to compete for students or they will not be able to compete for staff.Dr Kemp's so-called solution seems to me to be no solution whatsoever. Dr Kemp has the audacity to talk about problems currently being faced by the higher education system. I quote:Higher student:staff ratios, less frequent lecture and tutorial contact, the persistence of outdated technology and gaps in key areas of professional preparation . . . are fuelling a perception of declining quality.He could not be more right than he is about that. But who is responsible? I say this government is responsible—that Dr Kemp is personally responsible. Look at student-staff ratios: they have worsened from 12.8 to one in 1989 to 17.9 to one in 1998. They have been in constant decline in recent years. That decline has been exacerbated by the changes we have seen. The numbers have dropped by over 3½ per cent as a direct result of the policies. No wonder we are seeing fewer opportunities for students to actually see their lecturers—there are fewer lecturers for them to actually see. Operating grants have dropped dramatically in real terms since this government came to office. No wonder there is a perception—and I say it is a perception based on reality—of a decline in quality.What we are noticing on the industrial front is that the government's clear ideological agendas are further exacerbating the sense of crisis and chaos within our universities. Their strategy is to divide universities, to divide administrations from their staff, to blame lecturers and to blame employees within the universities. The government proposes to hold out a carrot so that universities will accept draconian and coercive action as a vehicle by which the staff will then be obliged to accept Peter Reith's draconian industrial agenda. I look forward to watching how this government explains the balaclavas and the guard dogs in the lecture rooms of this country, because that is what this submission proposes: a vigorous pursuit of Peter Reith's industrial relations strategy applied to the universities. You have to ask yourself: why is it that the universities are falling so far behind? Why is the quality falling off so appallingly? (Time expired)16:16:009749Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The appalling situation as I see it—independently listening to question time today—is the corroboration by avoiding any disclaimer that cabinet had discussed this matter in April and that the Prime Minister was involved in the discussions which led up to this paper which the opposition has now made public. When you see that process afoot you know it is dinkum and you know that the government's intentions are to proceed with the philosophy that understraps the proposals that have been released here and which are going to make it a factor in this country that you have to be rich if you are going to have choice in higher education.Let me read into the Hansard the requests to the Prime Minister from the students who have occupied Liberal Party offices in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane today:On behalf of the students of Australia we demand that John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia:. Make an immediate announcement that his Government will not endorse the Cabinet Submission by Dr Kemp that was tabled in Parliament yesterday;. Publicly reject the proposal for a loan scheme which would force many students into crippling debt;. State his commitment to the Coalition promise not to introduce education vouchers for university funding;. Rule out that his Government would allow universities to set their own fees;. Reject the notion that private higher education institutions be allowed to receive public subsidies;. State his Government's commitment to ensuring access to high quality education for all; and. Sack his education minister, Dr David Kemp, on the basis that he has an ideological desire to dismantle any notion of accessible or equitable education.I was in Ireland five or six years ago, and the debate there was how to remove the limited fee structure there to ensure that everybody had free access to tertiary education. We get that assurance as far as primary and secondary education is concerned, and the Greens believe that we should have it for tertiary education.How far from that ideal of a fair deal for all and equal access to tertiary education is this bundle of extreme Right dogma which is to facilitate the rich and which will end up, as the New Zealand experience has it, expanding those faculties which put already rich students into rich professions, such as, for example, accounting, law and medicine, to the detriment of science and other necessary services coming out of tertiary education—nursing, to name one? This is the wrong way to go. No wonder students around the country are reacting the way they are. The minister ought to go. (Time expired)16:19:009749Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I take particular note of the contributions of Senator Carr, Senator Stott Despoja and, most recently, Senator Brown. We have here the most comprehensive set of scaremongering tactics that I have probably ever seen.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—What does the University of Newcastle think?O15Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEY—The University of Newcastle is going extremely well, Senator. As we have moved from a system of total dependence on the public purse to fees—introduced by the Labor government—the university has absolutely boomed. I will go into some reasons why that broad direction is the correct direction, but the main focus I wanted to put at this point of time is that all the various scenarios run through by Senator Brown, Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Carr are just castles in the air. These are things which are part of their own fantasies and have nothing to do with government policy whatsoever. That was nailed very comprehensively this morning by the Prime Minister—who in reality killed off this debate, but of course the people on the other side will merrily carry on if they feel they can get any political mileage out of scaring people. It is very unfortunate that they have been in bed with the press on this—which ran some disgraceful headlines this morning across Australia. Those one-third of the public who just read the headlines without reading the story have been given a totally incorrect perception of what has happened.Policy has evolved over the years in relation to the way we fund and finance higher education. I was pleased to see Senator Stott Despoja take my interjection and expose her party's policy on this, which would return us to the days of Whitlam. She says the whole thing should be off the public purse. We have been there; we have done that. We did that under Whitlam. I was in the sector when we did that under Whitlam, and let me tell you what happened. Resources dried up, class sizes increased, libraries were destocked and, of course, the salaries of staff relatively fell behind. That is the legacy under a system totally funded by the public purse. That is the legacy that Senator Brown—using the Irish example—actually wanted us to go back to. Well, Senator, let me tell you what the outcome of that system is. The outcome is that, outside the gates of the universities in this country, you have a massive long queue of people who cannot get in because, under your system, the government cannot fund enough places. Labor realised that. They were mugged by reality about 1986 when they decided to start to bring in what they called an administrative fee and then it started to evolve from that.Let me raise, in a related way, another point that Senator Stott-Despoja made in relation to universities that do not charge fees. She was lamenting the fact that the University of Melbourne brings in a large fee in its private university for law, saying, `Isn't this terrible, isn't that inequitable?' No-one has to go to Melbourne to study law and pay that fee. It is a total consumer choice, but if they make that choice and, for example, they have actually been given a position at the University of Western Sydney in law and are prepared to pay and to use their own resources to go to the University of Melbourne, they then free up another place at the University of Western Sydney for someone else to go in who cannot pay that. So it is far more equitable.The other argument against having a totally government funded system is that not all the taxpayers who fund that system go to university or have children who go to university. You have 70 per cent of taxpayers who do not go to university and whose children never go to university, yet they pay out the money into the tax system to subsidise people who are better off. It is a massive transference of resources from the poor to the rich. When you actually bring in a fee structure, which has been done over the last 15 years, you help balance up that sort of inequity.Labor, because they stuck with the system initially devised by Gough Whitlam—and they stuck with it for the first five years of their government—created a situation where we had these massive shortages. We do not want to go back to that. We want to set up a system, and we are proposing to do that under this government. We want a system which will resource higher education properly. We have moved a fair way down that track so far. You do not see the queues outside the gates of universities that we saw under the Labor government. Basically, supply is meeting demand pretty well. As a matter of fact, some universities want to try to get more students in because they cannot get enough in some of the courses—a big change in the last six years on this.Revenue is going up, and those opposite keep creating this furphy that total revenue has gone down in universities—it has not. The composition of the revenue has changed. Revenue has gone up in universities in the last three years and we have a situation now where there is more money in universities than there ever has been. We have also an increase in students of 12,600 since this government came to power—that is up by 3½ per cent. University revenue is up by $376 million, between 1996 and 1999. There is a seven per cent increase in the number of students going to rural universities. Indigenous student numbers are up by 12 per cent. Numbers of students from a lower SES background are up by 9.4 per cent and, wait for this one, Senator Crossin, the numbers of people with disabilities attending universities are up by 61 per cent. The disadvantaged groups are much better off under this policy. Let me finally say that this scaremongering that we are going to go to this new type of system was nailed very thoroughly by the Prime Minister this morning at a doorstop interview. He said that `we have no intention to go to an all American, US-style system. We have no intention to bring in vouchers and we have no intention to deregulate fees'. It is disgraceful that people like Senator Carr, Senator Brown and Senator Stott-Despoja are scaring the Australian public by misleading them. We have no intention of going down that line; that is not government policy and it will not be implemented. It is about time you got back onto some real issues.16:26:009751Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Well, California, here we come! Dr Kemp says in his paper that some universities will position themselves at the premium end of the market and that cost behaviour is unpredictable. Well, off we go to the USA—a system that he wants us to emulate in this paper. Costs of higher education tuition have soared in America. Study undertaken by the Commission on National Investment in Higher Education released in 1997 estimated that if tuition fees rose at their current rate, effectively half of those who want to pursue higher education will be shut out. The main reason for soaring fees is information technology infrastructure costs. Universities are jostling to position themselves near the top of the market. The commission in America recommended that `increasing public investment should occur to arrest this crisis'.What a lot of hypocrisy we have seen in relation to higher education policies trotted out by this government, not since yesterday but since 1996. We had one minister who did so much damage to the higher education sector that she was demoted. Now we have another minister who has no plan for higher education, other than to put the cost of education in this sector onto students—to pitch students against staff and to pit families against how they can afford this for their children. Let us look at the track record: we have no plan and no vision, other than a strategy that, firstly, cut $800 million from higher education in the 1996 budget and has starved universities of adequate funding ever since then. Now, universities in deficit and at risk will be offered a new funding source—students, families' incomes and staff salaries. We have a minister who said during question time yesterday in the House of Representatives—of course, before this grand scheme was uncovered—in answer to a question about there being eight institutions that appear to be operating at a deficit:The suggestion that there are regional university campuses at risk is absolutely absurd, and I completely reject that.Why is it, then, Minister, that in your cabinet submission, in paragraph 3, you admit there are eight institutions that appear to be operating at a deficit and that some regional campuses are at risk. They certainly are! Take yourself five hours flying time away from here and have a long look at what is happening at the Northern Territory University.This is about an attack on the National Tertiary Education Union, just like we saw with the wharfies and with the building sector. In his submission he goes on to say that what they want to do is interfere in the industrial relations climate in universities—free up universities to determine their own destiny but interfere in the enterprise bargaining and the wage increases they can offer to their staff, and interfere in a very good climate of representation by members and staff in that sector. Let me finish by saying this: this outrageous document is about choice. If you have a fat wallet, you will go to university. If you have two, three, four or six kids in your family, you will choose who goes—and it won't be the girl, I can tell you that. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Documents97529752975210000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General's Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Report No. 12 of 1999-2000—Financial Control and Administration Audit—Management of Contracted Business Support Services.Committees9752975210000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—The President has received letters from a party leader seeking variations to the membership of certain committees.Motion (by Senator Boswell)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be appointed to committees as follows—Economics Legislation Committee Participating members: Senators Bartlett and Woodley for the committee's inquiries into A New Tax System (Tax Administration) Bill 1999 and the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 1999.Finance and Public Administration References Committee Substitute member: Senator Murray to replace Senator Ridgeway for the committee's inquiry into the business taxation reforms.Bills9752s2319752Debate resumed from 13 October, on motion by Senator Jacinta Collins:That this bill be now read a second time.16:31:009752Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—The Workplace Relations Amendment (Australian Defence Force Service and Training) Bill 1999 (No. 2) gives me the opportunity, for the first time in this chamber, to pay tribute to the efforts of Major General Cosgrove and his troops—and particularly those troops who come from the Northern Territory—who are currently serving under him in East Timor. It is also timely, I think, to recognise those members of the Defence Force who are deployed in duties around this country backing up the work of those currently overseas. We are relying on these people. I, along with the rest of the community, have great confidence in their ability and military skill and their understanding of the situation in which they find themselves.The aim of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Australian Defence Force Service and Training) Bill is to reinstate to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission the power to include leave for reserve Defence Force personnel from their employment to participate in the activities necessary to be a member of the Australian Defence Force reserves. This has become a necessary action on behalf of the Labor Party as a result of the short-sightedness of this government and the arrogance of its industrial relations minister back in 1996 when the first amendments to the Workplace Relations Act were presented to this parliament. That legislation excluded Defence Force leave from the 20 allowable award matters that the Industrial Relations Commission was able to deal with. It has now been shown to be one of the many detrimental elements of that legislation, in its impact on not only those wanting to access Defence Force leave but also the Defence Force itself, particularly in situations such as this country is now experiencing, and participating in, in East Timor.This government has shown that it is so obsessed with industrial relations reform—as it puts it—that it has been willing to sacrifice good defence policy and the care of its troops in the armed forces and those wanting to participate as reserves. But, as the months of the East Timor deployment evolve and the days tick by, we know that this is planned to be a very long commitment of our Australian troops and that there will need to be a rotation of those troops deployed in East Timor.Our military forces have not experienced this level of activity for some time, particularly in this climate, in the weather conditions that they will be confronted with in the coming months when we hit the wet season in the north of Australia and in the East Timor region, or the emotional strain that they are finding on a day-by-day basis. Already the armed forces are drawing heavily on the reserves, and for the next rotation the reserves will be needed in even greater number.As Kim Beazley said during his presentation of this bill in the House on 11 October this week:This bill would not have been necessary had the Minister for Aged Care, Bronwyn Bishop, when she was the minister associated with the Defence Force personnel, heeded the advice of Major General Luttrell—then the Assistant Chief of the Defence Force reserves—when the first form of the workplace relations bill was in this parliament.He quoted Major General Luttrell:As Reserve members constitute approximately 40 per cent of the ADF work force, their continued availability for training, as currently provided for in awards, agreements and company personnel policies, is essential to the Australian Defence Force capability.Major General Luttrell went on to say:If not identified as a matter for inclusion in awards, Reserve training leave may not be picked up within either the Certified Agreement, Australian Workplace Agreements or other State Agreements which will increasingly supplant existing awards.Although not one of the safety net employment conditions identified in the Bill, Reserve availabili ty for training is critical to maintaining defence capability and award coverage of this issue is an important component of ensuring this availability. The Bill should therefore include provisions which will permit awards to continue to cover Defence Force leave provisions.But the exclusion of Defence Force leave from the list of allowable matters has been a mistake by this government, make no doubt about it. It is an example of bad policy, particularly given the situation we are confronted with now in East Timor. This needs to be rectified and changed, and the decision needs to be reversed.The Defence Reserve Support Committee chaired by Sir James Killen raised this as a major issue at its meeting last November. The response they received from this government was not satisfactory and nothing has since changed. As reserve members constitute approximately 40 per cent of the ADF work force, their continued availability for training as currently provided for in awards, agreements and policies is essential to our continued capability in the defence forces.But the position of this government is to refer to the provision in the Defence Force Act to solve this issue. I have no doubt we will hear this afternoon arguments that it is okay if Defence Force leave is not in awards. It is all right, members on the government side will say, I am sure. Bear in mind, as Peter Reith has done, that they will point to the provisions for leave in the Defence Force Act. If an investigation were done into the use of this provision, it would show that there has never been a prosecution as a result of the provisions in the Defence Force Act. Those provisions allow for people who are not granted leave from their workplace to take action.But the Department of Defence does not want to use it, and it has never used it, to enforce the provisions because they do not think they can make it work. The view of the Defence Force is that they would rather jettison the reservist than exercise that section of the act which is to protect a person from being victimised in their employment for their Defence Force activities. A large number of reservists actually rely on their employment conditions for their leave. There are about 152—or there used to be, before the 1996 legislation—awards that had Defence Force leave in them. This government has managed, as a result of the 1996 legislation, to strip all of those away. As I understand it, only one has been resurrected—against the wishes of the employer. The result has been detrimental to defence. If this government will not listen to those in this chamber or in the House, then perhaps it may care to heed the advice of its own defence department. The government was advised, when it did this in 1996, as follows:As Reserve members constitute approximately 40 per cent of the Australian Defence work force, their continued availability for training, as currently provided for in awards and agreements, is essential to the Australian Defence Force capability. Existing awards have been important in providing institutional support for Reserves through the inclusion of provisions which allow leave for military training purposes for members of the Reserve.That is the formal minute the government got from the defence department, which was ignored. In the usual headstrong, arrogant manner of the industrial relations minister, for ideological reasons alone, and not sound defence policy, he overrode the defence department's requirements and stripped all awards and removed Defence Force leave.What has the government done about that in the two years since this matter was first raised and in the nearly three years since the legislation that created the problem? The simple fact is that it has done nothing. Labor has recognised that there is a problem and has been willing to do something about it. My colleague Arch Bevis introduced a private member's bill in the House—the Workplace Relations Amendment (Defence Purposes Leave) Bill—on 21 June this year. But the government did not bring it on for debate. The government has found itself in a position where it has fallen short of all of its targets on reserves, and now it really matters.Let us look at its recruitment against target over the course of 1998-99. The shortfall in recruitment for the RAAF is 44 per cent; for the RAN it is 80 per cent; and for the Army it is 49 per cent. That is a substantial record of failure to encourage people in the general work force to uphold their patriotic duty and make a contribution, if they so choose, to the defence forces of this nation in the reserves. It is now critical, and it will become even more so in the coming months. It will not be possible to sustain the activities in East Timor for any length of time without relying on our reserves. Reserves must be recruited now and given the certainty, in terms of their employment and their capacity whilst in their employment, to be trained properly for circumstances of danger in which they will find themselves.In the current climate, this bill must proceed, must be debated and must be passed. It will provide job security for those men and women who wish to undertake duty as an Australian Defence Force reservist. It will allow them to undertake the training they need to prepare themselves for any dangerous circumstances and for the opportunity, which they want as members of the Defence Force reserves, to give our soldiers and our people in East Timor the break that they will need, and will deserve, in the coming months. I urge people in this chamber to support this bill.16:41:009754Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—I commence my comments by agreeing with Senator Crossin on only one aspect, that is, the comments she made about Major General Cosgrove and the troops we have in East Timor. I believe Major General Cosgrove has shown superb and inspirational leadership. Our troops have done us proud. They have showcased Australia's defence forces to the world. To try to play politics with this issue is not in the best interests of those that are risking life and limb over there on behalf of this government's policy. I do not believe it is necessarily the best course of action to take. Having said that, I agree with Senator Crossin as to the fantastic way our troops are performing in very difficult circumstances.However, there is another rationale and reason for this piece of legislation coming before the Senate today. Those of us who know about the treachery that goes on in the Australian Labor Party know what the hidden agenda is. Indeed, some of the treachery within the Labor Party seems to be limitless. Former Labor defence minister Robert Ray once boasted about the Labor Party, `We hunt and kill our own', or words to that effect. That is what he told the Senate, and he was very proud of that statement. I suggest to the Senate today that that is exactly what is going on now.In putting forward this Workplace Relations Amendment (Australian Defence Force Service and Training) Bill 1999 , the Labor Party tacticians knew that we in the government would, of necessity, be referring to one of the most bumbling and incompetent media conferences ever undertaken in this country. Of course, that was the media interview undertaken by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley. If I recall correctly, that interview was undertaken some three days ago.We understand that the opposition have got the knives out for Mr Beazley—that his support within the Labor Party is evaporating even quicker than it is within the community at large. We in the government would prefer to see Simon Crean in the role of Leader of the Opposition because the Australian people would have a very difficult choice to make between Senator Faulkner and Simon Crean as to which person that leads the Labor Party in these chambers of the parliament they would dislike the most. Let me simply turn to this interview, in which Mr Beazley, allegedly a former defence minister—GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—You are being so offensive to our reservists!N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Senator Collins asserts that I am being offensive to reservists. I do not think I have made any comment in any shape or form that denigrates reservists—that is, unless Senator Collins is suggesting that Mr Beazley is there only in reserve as leader at the moment.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—I rise on a point of order.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—Your standing order number?GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—The point of order relates to the standing order that relates to relevance.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Your standing order number?GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Since when have I been required to refer to the standing order number on an occasion such as this?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—What is your standing order number?GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Would you like me to stand here and find it for you? Relevance is the point of order. You know there is a point of order, with a number attached, to relevance, and that is the point of order.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—What is the standing order number?GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—I ask you to rule.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—It is amazing that the Labor Party raised the point of order just as I turned up the extract of a radio interview on 6PR between Mr Beazley and an interviewer. The most offensive thing that you can do to the reserves in this country is to not know the circumstances and conditions under which they serve and then seek to pontificate about the system and condemn the government for the current system. Indeed, I would suggest to Senator Collins and those on the other side that, if they are so concerned about reservists, they invite their leader to acquaint himself with the circumstances under which reservists serve in this country, before trying to come up with a policy.I do confess that I think it might be the first policy that the Labor Party has come up with since losing government. This is the basis of the policy, and I invite people to consider this interview. The interview goes for three pages. Within those three pages we have Mr Beazley saying the following about reserves, how they are paid and their circumstances of employment, the subject matter of this particular bill. If Senator Collins does want to raise relevance again, that was the topic of the interview that Mr Beazley was engaged in, although in fairness I could understand if Senator Collins could not understand that that was what Mr Beazley was talking about. Within the three-page interview, very widely spaced, this is Mr Beazley at his best:Yes, well, that's right. Sorry. Look, mate, I might have misled you there. It would be paid leave, in a sense, like your annual leave, that sort of thing.Over the page:Oh sorry, mate, I have misinformed you again. It is unpaid.A bit further down:I've got a bloke in here who's sort of waved his hands all over the place—it must be like a semaphore system of policy making for the Labor Party. Mr Beazley said:I've got a bloke in here who's sort of waved his hands all over the place and said that that was paid, so in fact as I originally thought, it is unpaid.Later on in the interview:I thought I must have made a mistake when I initially mentioned it to you—the arm waving—but I hadn't made a mistake, it was unpaid.Good Heavens above! This is the alternative Prime Minister allegedly showing concern for the reservists of this nation. He had no idea and the only thing he was concerned about was trying to make a cheap political point in circumstances where we have people overseas.Quite frankly, if the opposition want to bring up an issue such as reserves and the conditions under which they serve, I would invite them to fully brief their leader so he does not make these embarrassing gaffes one after the other.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Would you address the bill, Senator?N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—Senator Collins interjects again and asks me to address the bill. The Labor Party are very touchy when you refer them to their leader's interview on this very issue. The interview starts off:Interviewer: Would it work like this—talking about reserve pay—that if you need, say, two weeks off, you get paid leave from your employer? Is that how it works?Kim Beazley: You'd get leave from your employer.Interviewer: You don't get paid leave?Kim Beazley: That would be paid by—the Army would give you pay while you're in there and so you've just got the right to leave there.Interviewer: OK. So it's unpaid leave, in other words?Kim Beazley: Yes. Interviewer: It's paid because the Army pays you.Kim Beazley: Yes, that's right.Interviewer: But from the employer's point of view you're saying to your employer, "I need two weeks unpaid leave because I'm going on exercises"?Kim Beazley: Yes, that's right.Interviewer: Nonetheless, I suppose you'll have those in industry saying well, it's all very well and good but I've got to get somebody else to replace that person while they're away and that's going to cost me dough.Kim Beazley: Yes, well that's right. Sorry. Look, mate, I might have misled you there. It would be paid leave, in a sense, like your annual leave, that sort of thing.Interviewer: So it's paid leave?Kim Beazley: Paid leave, yes.Interviewer: But that's double-dipping, isn't it?Kim Beazley: Not particularly. They don't get paid huge amounts by the Defence Department.Interviewer: But they're still being paid by their employer, plus they're going to get money from the Defence Department.Kim Beazley: That is correct that that's what the case has always been—according to Mr Beazley. The interview continues:Interviewer: Well, I get back to the question then: Can you understand why employers even more so then would be upset because they say, "Well, all right, I'm losing employee X for two weeks and I've got to replace that person and pay someone accordingly"?Kim Beazley: Oh yes. And that's why it's important that it be incorporated in an award. You take a thing like that out of awards and it's very unlikely that people are actually going to be supportive of it.Interviewer: All right. Well, what chances do you . . . Mr Beazley interrupts:Oh sorry, mate, I have misinformed you again. It is unpaid.Interviewer: Oh, OK.Mr Beazley: I've got a bloke in here who's sort of waved his hands all over the place and said that that was paid, so in fact as I originally thought, it is unpaid.Interviewer: Right, OK. I think it would have been . . . Mr Beazley interrupts again:I thought I must have made a mistake when I initially mentioned it to you—the arm waving—but I hadn't made a mistake, it was unpaid.Somewhere along the way clearly he did make a mistake. Having an alternative Prime Minister perform in such a manner on an issue which the Labor Party are asserting is so important is unacceptable to the Australian community. In that interview Mr Beazley seemed to have more turns on policy than former Senator Kernot. As it happens, the interests of the government in this case and those of the Labor Party seem to coincide in giving us the opportunity to highlight the absolute incompetence of the would-be Prime Minister of this country.To highlight that incompetence, Labor have introduced the Workplace Relations Amendment (Australian Defence Force Service and Training) Bill 1999 . This bill will not have the desired outcome. Indeed, it may well have the reverse impact. Let us look at the history of and rationale for this legislation. The trade unions, in a desperate bid to breathe new life into the award system through this mechanism, have in a political and cynical way jumped onto the issue of the reserves.I invite Senator Crossin to reflect carefully on the terminology she used about the changes she says that the workplace relations legislation has occasioned. She talked about arrogance, about bad policy and about the legislation being for ideological reasons alone. What she failed to inform the Australian people about in this debate was that none other than the shadow spokesman on industrial relations, Cheryl Kernot, supported and championed that legislation through the Senate. Senator Crossin's industrial relations spokesman voted for this legislation which Senator Crossin has been bagging out.The Labor Party have to make up their minds, or is this just another flip-flop by Ms Kernot? Ms Kernot said at one stage, `This is good for the country', but then all of a sudden said, `Now that I want to progress in the Labor Party it is bad for the country and I will go into the House of Representatives now and condemn it.' The Labor Party have to come clean in relation to Ms Kernot and tell us whether her mark 1 version on industrial relations was the truth and what she honestly believed or whether her reincarnation in the Labor Party is what she truly holds dear to her heart. Chances are that she does not hold much dear to her heart when she is able to make the monumental change from the Australian Democrats to the Labor Party. I think most people in Australia would know that although there isn't much more, there is a little bit more freedom within the Australian Democrats to hold a particular policy view than there is in the Australian Labor Party. So the legislation that Senator Crossin spent all her time condemning was legislation that her shadow industrial relations spokesperson helped guide through the Senate. That is important for the Australian people to remember.Let us look at what would happen if we went back to the award system, as is being suggested by the Australian Labor Party. Under Labor, only some 152 out of about 3,000 federal awards referred to leave for reservists. So where were these champions of the reservists in the trade union movement in getting these into awards during the 13 years of Labor and before? They had never shown any real concern, as witnessed by these figures: only 152 awards out of 3,000. Out of those 152 awards, 50 per cent of them were in the public sector. So much for their talk about private enterprise.In contrast—and this is important—the workplace relations regime is working. We happen to believe in flexibility. We happen to believe that employees and employers ought to be allowed to negotiate and come up with an agreement which is adapted to the needs of both sides and which is not determined by the industrial relations club of big trade unions with big employer groups doing sweetheart deals in the Industrial Relations Commission.Under the workplace relations regime—which, just in case the Labor Party missed, the former Senator Kernot, now Ms Kernot, the member for Dickson, voted for and supported—Telstra, the Commonwealth Bank, the Northern Territory government, Wesfarmers Dalgety and Serco Gardner Merchant are just some examples of employ ers with flexible reserve leave. So reservists are not being forgotten under this new regime; they are being considered. Where appropriate, the employers and employees together work it out.We as a government also work things out when employers do not give leave, in breach of the Defence (Re-establishment) Act 1965. That act prevents employers from penalising or prejudicing employees because of their service. Senator Crossin bemoaned the fact that there had never been a prosecution under the legislation. I simply say that often the best test for legislation is that you do not need to penalise anybody under it because they understand that it is there and they understand the consequences if they offend against it. The defence department seeks to work out any difficulties with an employer and an employee to organise an outcome which suits both sides and not shoehorn employers and employees into award agreements which do not necessarily suit their particular enterprise. We have had successful arrangements with Telstra, and also with the Victorian police where originally there were hiccups but after discussions and negotiations those hiccups have now been sorted out.We are confident that the current arrangements are working well. The trade union backers of the opposition have told them `You've got to do something in the area of industrial relations. You've got to try and breathe new life into the award system', and in a very cynical way they have unfortunately sought to bring the reserves into this industrial relations debate at a time that I would have thought was most inopportune and most unstatesmanlike. I believe that was why Mr Beazley stuttered and stalled through that interview that I read into the Hansard. I reckon his heart was not in this stunt, either.17:02:009758Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—This is a debate on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Australian Defence Force Service and Training) Bill 1999 (No. 2) , a private member's bill introduced by Senator Collins from Victoria. However, it has its genesis in the House of Representatives. In the House of Representatives, this issue has had all the politics, bluff and bluster attached to it that you get in the debates there—quite different from the high standard we have up here! But the fact is that at the heart of all this there could indeed be a good point. I would like to take you through the actual status of leave in the defence forces to see why I arrive at the conclusion.The question I have asked is: is Defence Force leave an allowable matter under section 89A(2)(g) of the Workplace Relations Act? As one of the persons involved with that section when it was brought into the parliament, I thought it was and I still think it is. However, the commission is yet to definitively rule on the issue. As far as I am aware, there have only been two commission cases on this—Commissioner Lewin's decision on the Higher Education Award and Commissioner Larkin's case on Airservices Australia—and in the absence of a full bench determination on the matter it was clear that she was uncertain about it. On that decision, Commissioner Larkin said:I have to date been inclined to the view that military service leave is a form of cultural leave. However, in the light of the reasoning which is contained in relation to other leave entitlement in the personal leave test case, I think the safest conclusion is that this provision is non-allowable. If in due course the issue is further considered at full bench level and the result is different to the conclusions I have reached, an application to vary the award may be made pursuant to section 113.That is hardly a definitive ruling on the issue. At best, all that can be said is that the matter is not yet fully resolved, and will not be until a full bench rules. But as the government points out, the Defence Act and the Defence (Re-establishment) Act provide a prohibition on employers acting to the detriment of the interests of reservists, so there is legal protection in this area.My advice is that only five per cent of awards had military training leave in them in 1996 and half of these were in the public sector. Where is the evidence that public sector employers have changed their policy on military training leave? As far as I am aware it is still an Australian Public Service determination of conditions. I might add that the condition of military training leave can be reinserted into awards in the public sector under section 170MX, through arbitration, because these were mostly paid rates awards, and 170MX awards are not bound by section 89A. Or, it could be enforced as an exceptional matters order if an employer refused to agree to it. So the issue here is nowhere near as dramatic as some in the Labor Party might allege. The other half of these awards were single employer awards, and it is likely that the conditions have been replicated in the relevant certified agreements.The other 95 per cent of awards, including all the big industry awards, do not include military training leave. As far as I am aware, in none of the few negotiated award simplifications that happened prior to 1 July 1998 did the unions or the employers argue for military training leave to be included. In the years when the Leader of the Opposition was defence minister and the years that Labor were in government, there was no change to the lack of military training leave in big industry awards, and there has been no change in the years of the coalition government. So if it was good enough not to have the issue regulated from 1983 to 1996 and to leave it to the provisions of the defence acts which I outlined earlier, why is it not appropriate to do that now? The answer of the Labor Party may be that the Workplace Relations Act 1996 makes a difference.So on the one hand there is a sense that this is a bit of a beat-up—`It's good politics at this time so let's have a bit of a go'—and on the other hand is my view, where I think military training leave will be found by a full bench to be an allowable matter. And then there is the view we have already had and which I have quoted, where there is some doubt in this matter. So I come to the conclusion that military training leave should be allowable because of its importance to the country and because of the inference within the Defence Act and the Defence (Re-establishment) Act that we should encourage matters which encourage reservists to do their duty. I would make the point that, since we are engaged in East Timor in an international exercise of peace enforcement under international law, conventions are a part of international law which we attach a great deal of notice to. I think the inclusion of military training leave as an allowable matter would help Australia meet its international obligations. Whilst I have doubt as to the validity of the case, to remove doubt I am inclined to support your bill, Senator Collins. That is the conclusion I have come to.17:09:009759McLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS84LQldALP00—I rise this afternoon to add my voice to that of my colleagues in urging the government to act on the matter of Defence Force leave for reservists. Like my colleagues, I find it extraordinary that the government have stubbornly refused to address the issue, despite the glaring evidence that they have made a mistake. The government's 1996 Workplace Relations Act deliberately removed from the Industrial Relations Commission any power to provide leave for Australian reservists to participate in the activities necessary to be a member of the Australian Defence Force reserves. It suited them to think that employers would pick up the provision in either Australian workplace agreements or certified agreements. As we know, that has not been the case, and our reserve capabilities are suffering as a result.In the midst of our biggest troop deployment since Vietnam, we are well short of our reserve recruitment targets in all of the services. The government has been told this repeatedly. We in the Labor Party have consistently pointed out the short-sightedness of the Workplace Relations Act's omissions in relation to our reservists. We have told current and previous defence ministers that they need to act in the interests of our reservists. We have introduced private members' bills about it, only to have them ignored by this government.But let us be clear about this. The damage currently being done to our reserve capabilities by the government has been brought to their attention not only by the Labor Party. The Defence Force reserves' own support committee, chaired by a former Liberal defence minister, has raised the matter, as have senior reserve officers and the Victorian Liberal Council, which carried a resolution urging the government to ensure that defence leave for reserve Defence Force members is included as an allowable matter in federal awards. The government are well aware of the problem that they have created with their industrial relations agenda. They have been warned that the current system jeopardises our reserve forces. They have been told that removing reserve leave as an allowable matter is stopping reservists from participating in defence activities, including training. The government have been told what is going on, and they have refused to address it. They are simply unwilling to admit that they are wrong.Make no mistake: the people on the receiving end of this government's poor policy are our reservists. Please let me give you an example. North Queensland, as senators are no doubt aware, has a strong Australian Defence Force presence, including reservists. The 11th Brigade, based in Jezzine Barracks in Townsville, has an establishment of 1,916 and an effective strength of 852. I have been contacted by a number of reservists in Far North Queensland about this matter, including one person who has 14 years of reserve experience. This person works in a service industry in the north and is employed in a permanent part-time position. Their reserve responsibilities are a source of great personal satisfaction to them and a means of contributing to the community good. In effect, the reserves are this person's second career. As a part-time worker, this person has been able to meet the requisite training requirements for that career over 14 years. That is a lot of time that this person has given to the reserves and, of course, to us as a community.Recently, the person was asked by the reserves to go overseas as part of the Australian Defence Force efforts in East Timor. It was, this person felt, an honour to be approached and a chance to exercise their skills and training. It was a chance, in the person's own words, `to do what I have been trained to do'. And yet the person turned the opportunity down. Why? Because it required a six-month stint in East Timor and the person was advised that their job would not be there on their return. There was nothing in the person's award to offer any protection.This is not an unusual case. That is the point that this reservist is making and that the Defence Force, the Victorian Liberal Council and the Australian Labor Party have been making. We ask a lot of time from our reservists, and it is not always easy for employers to accommodate these demands. Many employers simply will not do it and, under this government's industrial framework, they are not required to. The result is that reservists are being short-changed and our Defence Force is losing the services of good, trained and committed personnel. The government has a responsibility to our reservists. These people give up their own time to serve their community. They are regarded as an integral part of our Defence Force. We cannot do without them, and yet this government will not move to ensure that reservists are not penalised in the work force.I also draw the attention of the chamber to the treatment of reservists employed by Telstra. Telstra is an organisation which, by the nature of its work force, has many employees who are also members of the Defence Force reserves. In the wake of Australia's East Timor commitment, the company stated its wish to support its reservist employees should they be called to serve in East Timor.But contrary to its stated intention, Telstra is not supporting all its reservists. Reservists employed on a contract basis have been granted leave with pay for the duration of their service. Reservists employed under an industrial award have been granted just two weeks paid leave in addition to their four weeks Defence Force leave. If this is not enough, these employees will have to use their accrued long service leave or any other accrued leave they have. Contract employees will have access to unlimited paid leave from Telstra while award employees will only receive two weeks plus any existing annual ADF leave they have.All this has been done without a murmur of protest from the government. How cynical! The government are willing to have some reservists discriminated against rather than question what Telstra is doing. They would rather have some reservists, who have given their time, their holidays and their service to this country, penalised for serving rather than pull up an organisation clearly intent on using the situation in East Timor for its own workplace agenda. How cynical is that?I want to place on record my admiration for the men and women who make up our Defence Force reserves. They give up their spare time to serve our country and right now, in the midst of the biggest deployment since Vietnam, we are relying on them more than ever. Yet there is a serious problem. The Labor Party has, on numerous occasions, drawn the attention of the government to the fact that reserve numbers are falling. I wonder why! Why would you volunteer your time when you might jeopardise your paid employment in the process? Why would you give up your time when, if you are actually required to report for duty, you might have to draw on your own annual or long service leave? Why would you when you have a federal government which is ignoring advice that you are being disadvantaged by one of its policies? The Labor Party calls on the government to finally do the right thing by its reservists and support this bill.17:16:009761Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—I rise to speak briefly to this bill as there are only a small number of issues which I want to raise. I notice that this bill has been introduced by Senator Jacinta Collins and her second reading speech has been incorporated in Hansard . That is not unusual when a bill is being introduced into this place except that, on most occasions when a second reading speech is incorporated in Hansard before a bill comes on for debate, those who want to participate in the debate have had a chance to read it because it usually does not come on on the same day. I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with the practice, it is just that I have no idea what Senator Jacinta Collins's comments are in relation to this bill because I understand that you incorporated the speech today.GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—No, yesterday.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Yesterday? I do apologise. I thought it was today, because I am one staff member short today and I went to look very quickly.In relation to this amendment to the Workplace Relations Act 1996, when you are talking about omitting subsections (2) and (3) and substituting subsections (2), (2)(a) and (3), that is really a reinstatement of some old Labor Party principles. I have been through the 1996 amendments to the Workplace Relations Act, and one of the things that came up for discussion then was reducing the number of allowable matters that were contained in awards. Here we have, in this bill that is being brought forward by the Labor Party, not so much an interest in the reservists but an interest in ideology and a return to trying to increase the number of allowable matters that are put in awards by amending the Workplace Relations Act.I listened carefully to Senator Abetz when he was speaking to this bill. Senator Abetz highlighted to this chamber the confusion that exists between Mr Beazley, as Leader of the Opposition, and his defence science and personnel shadow minister, Mr Laurie Ferguson, who just simply do not understand the laws. Mr Beazley's confusion was highlighted in a transcript that I heard Senator Abetz read out. I also have a copy of that transcript and I cannot believe that a Leader of the Opposition could be so unprepared on an issue that he considered to be so important to the reservists and to the Defence Force of Australia.Mr Beazley's confusion on 11 October over reserve leave and Mr Laurie Ferguson's comments on employment protection show that Labor simply does not understand the laws and arrangements that have been governing the reserve service. Mr Laurie Ferguson joined the Leader of the Opposition in causing confusion about reserves. He raised unnecessary doubts about the contribution that reserves can make to the East Timor deployment. So it would appear that Mr Beazley, having been defence minister in his own time, simply did not understand the law as it existed when he was minister.It is quite obvious that the opposition's real agenda is not about having an effective reserve and having effective conditions for those reservists to operate under; it is more about bringing back an outdated and inflex ible award system. We have seen, over the last couple of weeks while we have been having an inquiry into the amendments to the Workplace Relations Act, that the same tired old arguments are being trotted out by witness after witness in relation to award provisions. Here we have just another example of the Labor Party trying to wind back the clock to those days when there were inflexible award provisions—provisions that suited neither the employee nor the employer. They see this and any possible use of reservists, in the emotive time of the Defence Force's activities in East Timor, as an opportunity to be able to wind back the clock in order to try to bring back what was a totally inflexible and outdated system.We have a situation where the minister himself has outlined the position with the reserves. We have Mr Beazley trying to politicise the reserves. We have a bill that has been introduced into this place by Senator Jacinta Collins which is specifically for one purpose only: to reintroduce an allowable award matter that applies to services and training. You are trying to reintroduce a—GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—One. You are arguing against your own case.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Senator Collins, you have said `one' three or four times; I would have thought that reintroducing an award, whether it is one or any other number, is going back to the old system. We spent a considerable amount of time in 1996 reducing the number of allowable award matters so that people would be able to have a much more flexible workplace in Australia, which we have. All of the economic and employment pointers also tell us that the more flexible arrangements put in place in the workplace by reducing the number of inflexible award matters has made it possible for Australians to get work and to have a much more flexible workplace, which suits the workers.I have been listening to the ideology of the Labor Party for hour upon hour over the past four or five days of the hearings of the committee inquiry into the legislation that is before this place in relation to amending the Workplace Relations Act—not this particular bill but the other bill we are inquiring into. We have heard the same ideology trotted out hour after hour. No acknowledgment has been given to the government that, since 1996 when this Workplace Relations Act was put in place, unemployment has dropped from 11 per cent to seven per cent. There has been no acknowledgment of that whatsoever, or that in that period of time real wages for the low paid have increased, by the ACTU's own admission, by 9½ per cent. There was no acknowledgment of the government's role in that, because they seem to think it is all their own good work. In fact, this has all happened out of this bill, which they said would be completely unworkable and would strip workers of entitlements and of real wage increases.During the whole of the time of the accord and the Labor government, real wages decreased. Yet, since the operation of the Workplace Relations Act in 1996—the first bill that was introduced by Mr Reith—we have seen unemployment drop from 11 per cent to seven per cent and we have seen real wages for the low paid increase by 9½ per cent. That is a pretty fair effort, but there has been no acknowledgment of that from the unions that have appeared before us in the inquiry. They always try to find some other reason for all of these things that have happened. Yet when the Labor Party was in government, all they could deliver to the Australian people were high unemployment and no wages growth, and on top of all that high interest rates, which affected people in the work force and people who were not in the work force, particularly in relation to the repayment of home loans and all of those things that affect the average worker so much.What we have in this bill before the chamber today is a return to the old Labor philosophy of trying to introduce more allowable award matters, when it has been shown that, by reducing the existing allowable matters in the awards, we have been able to produce benefits for Australian workers, which they realise they are getting even if the unions that represent some 29 or 30 per cent of Australian workers do not. I know that the membership of unions has decreased to an alarming level. GB6COLLINSSenator Jacinta Collins—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order on relevance. I was ruled out of order by the previous Acting Deputy President—and I will be taking that matter up with the President—because I did not know the precise number of the point of order, which is an absolutely ridiculous ruling according to the clerks, but can I highlight that this bill is about one allowable matter. We are seeking to clarify a commission understanding that it is not allowable. It is not about the workplace relations bill that is before the Senate committee.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bartlett)—There is no point of order.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—I should think that there is no point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I have heard a lot of speeches in second reading debates in this place, and I have heard a lot from members of the opposition. All the time that I have been in this place, speeches in the second reading debate have ranged far and wide. I am talking about allowable awards, and what are you doing in this bill? You are introducing another allowable award matter, and if that is not relevant to the second reading debate, I am surprised.Senator Vanstone has been in this place a lot longer than I have, and I have no doubt that she has heard a lot more wide ranging speeches from the Labor Party.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—Too right, and from the other side.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—That is what I say, from the other side.7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—And this side.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Thank you, Senator Vanstone—very wide ranging. So your attempt to take a point of order, Senator Collins, was—7E4VANSTONESenator Vanstone—Ungracious.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Very ungracious. When Senator Collins has been in this place a bit longer she will realise that speeches in the second reading debate give people the opportunity to range somewhat wider than they would in other speeches that they have to make in this chamber. I do not want to continue much longer because I know my colleague Senator Mason wants to speak to this bill, and I know we have to finish in half an hour. I conclude my remarks by reiterating that it is the view on this side of the chamber that this bill to amend the Workplace Relations Act to introduce another allowable award matter is simply a return of the Labor Party to their old ideology, and will simply not stand them in good stead because, as they know themselves, the operation of the existing Workplace Relations Act has provided tremendous benefits to those people who are workers in Australia today—higher wages and less unemployment. With the economy running on very low interest rates, the last thing we want to do is to return to the bad old days of the Labor Party.17:29:009763Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQldALP00—The contribution I will make this afternoon is going to be short. The previous speakers from the Labor Party have covered the main points very well, but there are a couple of matters that I want to clarify in terms of the debate so far. Senator Ferguson mentioned flexibility in our system of industrial relations. That is in fact what the bill allows to happen. It allows the Industrial Relations Commission to deal with Defence Force leave upon a certain ground. It allows the commission to deal with the potential flexibility between the submissions on behalf of employers and submissions by unions as to what form clauses in awards should take in relation to Defence Force leave. This is an important matter, notwithstanding the contribution Senator Abetz made in relation to it, where after a while I came to the conclusion that we were not talking about this bill at all, though it appears that he got to it in the end.The matters that Senator Murray went to were interesting. However, I want to clarify something in relation to his contribution. He did mention the exceptional matters order as another way of putting Defence Force leave within a framework which the commission may be able to deal with. However, exceptional matters orders have a limited life, unlike an award provision, which would go on ad infinitum and allow the parties to be able to deal with the matter in a sensible and appropriate manner.This is a matter that I can speak on with some knowledge, not only having appeared in the commission and dealt with these matters but also being a part-time soldier for some 10 years. The number of awards that have been varied is an indication of the take-up rate by employees who wish to be part-time soldiers, and the ability of the commission to be able to deal with it is relevant. Many employers simply understood that the ability was there for the commission to vary such a provision and allow people to have leave in an individual case.I support the bill. In short, it will ensure that leave for participation in service and training as a member of the Australian Defence Force Reserves can be dealt with by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. It must be a matter that the commission can deal with. It is not an argument to say that it is a little-used clause, that it is redundant, that it is superfluous and that as such it should not be considered or that the government will deal with it in other ways. That is not the agenda that Mr Reith is running. He has removed the provision and he has not supported it in any other way. The reserve force should not be treated in such an offhand manner. Workers should enjoy this right, and the Army would benefit from it.By opposing this, Mr Reith has shot himself in the foot. It hurts the Army Reserve. As I said earlier, I have served in the Army Reserve and I can say that I recognise the difficulties that the Army Reserve has had in recruiting and retaining soldiers, especially those from the private sector. Often soldiers took annual leave or unpaid leave. It sometimes occurred that reservists would have to pack up and head back to work because the employer had expressed concern about the time spent away. The Army Reserve itself spends considerable time talking up the benefits to employers. It gains support from employers. The union I worked for in the past had an agreement with the Army Reserve for support, and many other employers have also demonstrated a strong support. It is a sad day to find that this government cannot support an award provision that the Army Reserve would benefit from. The conditions can be improved upon if the commission is able to deal with it. This government should not be about removing clauses from awards. It should be allowing flexibility and allowing the commission to deal with award provisions in respect of this matter. The government can turn the tide around and say that it supports this bill.I also take this opportunity to add my full support to Major General Cosgrove and the soldiers serving under him in East Timor. I praise them for the high standard of work that they are performing in very difficult circumstances. Turning to this issue in particular, reserve numbers have plummeted. This government has not seen fit to do much about it, it seems, other than to hurry down the path of reducing available resources. It seems that it is far more interested in trying to draw money out of the education budget to fund its business tax changes than in funding the Army Reserve appropriately.This bill has the effect of making the award provisions on Defence Force leave an allowable matter. Let us not get hooked up on the term `allowable matter'. Long before the Reith legislation's first wave in 1996, allowable matters were simply matters that the commission could deal with—all matters. Let me go now into these innocuous clauses that Mr Reith has found so unpalatable. It is worth while to do so. In fact, I found in a federal award one of these matters that were not allowable under the 1996 legislation. It is a simple provision. It reads:An employee who is a member of the Australian Defence Force Reserve shall receive two weeks leave to attend annual training camps. For this period, such employee shall be reimbursed by the employer an amount equal to the difference between the amount paid in respect of such attendance and the employee's base weekly salary (which shall include the tropical allowance, clause 11.4, where applicable).This was simply a make-up provision to ensure that the employee, while serving and providing support to the nation, was provided with an amount to make up the difference between the two rates of pay. There are other clauses which simply provided for leave without pay and others which provided for paid leave. All these types of things could be argued before the commission and agreed to by employers and unions and placed in awards, but this government will not allow that to occur. What it should do is allow that to occur and support this bill.17:36:009765Mason, Sen BrettSenator MASON84MQLDLP10—I want to say a few things this afternoon about the people that this bill is directed towards, the Australian reservists. One of my favourite political leaders of this century, Sir Winston Churchill, was right when he described those who serve the national interest as a member of volunteer defence forces while also doing a civilian job or studies as `twice the citizen'. They have a proud tradition of service to the community in peace and war. This country has produced perhaps the finest soldiers this century, and of course the Army reservists have played a very proud part in that tradition. They are an important link between the Australian Defence Force and our community.Senator Ludwig is one of those who is part of that link, and it is a great link and an old link. Indeed it goes right back to Federation in 1901, when Australia had a military force—comprising militia and volunteers—of 27,000 people with a permanent force of only 1,500. The reserve forces comprised about 96½ per cent of Australia's total force and today of course they represent something like one third of Australia's defence forces.It is important, and I certainly agree with the opposition, that we provide the men and women in our reserve force with the support, assistance and recognition that they deserve. It is important too that we recognise the support provided by the employers of reservists in allowing them to undertake training and in encouraging them to provide service to our nation. In return, those who participate in the reserve forces learn valuable skills in leadership and also trade skills.Like Senator Ludwig, my brother David was an Army reservist. He was the first person to walk alone across Australia from the most easterly point to the most westerly point. He did so with three camels. He did it last year and he was the Australian Geographic national explorer of the year for 1998. He also raised a lot of money for the Fred Hollows Foundation. He attributes much of that great skill in walking across this entire nation by himself with the camels to the skills he learnt in the Army Reserve. Along with Senator Ludwig, he would have learnt things about navigation, how to control camels and all those sorts of things.Reservists who volunteer to serve are paid a full-time military salary and, should they be deployed as part of the peace enforcement mission, they receive the same tax-free salary and allowances as their regular counterparts. Reservists are also covered by the same compensation arrangements as regulars when they serve as such. Medical specialists can have their fixed practice costs paid while they serve, thanks to our government's introduction of this condition of service.Employees who are members of the reserve forces and serve with the Defence Force are protected, as Senator Abetz pointed out, under the existing provisions of the Defence Act 1903 and the Defence (Re-establishment) Act 1965 in relation to their civilian employment. These acts prohibit employers from being able to penalise or prejudice an employee who serves in the Defence Force; sections 8 and 9 of the Defence (Re-establishment) Act can be invoked and an employer fined under criminal law. This protection also extends to volunteers who are currently serving in East Timor—something like 38 officers and 49 other ranks in the Army, working principally in areas such as medicine, logistics and personnel.Our workplace relations system is working well. Examples of companies who have flexible reserve leave include Telstra and the Commonwealth bank, and the Northern Territory government also does so. I pulled off the Web some statements from employers about the Army Reserve. For example, Mr Richard Bluck, who is the Executive Director of the Williamson Community Leadership Program, says:Reserve service can enhance an employee's performance and expand an organisation's experience and skills base. The leadership and management training reservists acquire is excellent and is certainly applicable to all organisations public or private, big or small. If employers and employees wish to make more comprehensive arrangements about service with the Defence Force, they can always of course make a formal agreement on the matter. Sadly but consistently, the ALP has opposed award simplification of any kind—and that was Senator Ferguson's argument. Although the ALP has claimed that reforms introduced in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 had an adverse effect on reservists, it certainly has not shown any particular problems with the manner in which the current reserve system is operating. The ALP option would mean a return to the system before 1996, when there were 152 federal awards—out of 3,000—which had some reference to leave for Army reservists. It was confusing and it was a shambles.Labor's `one size fits all' forces employers to comply with rules that do not in fact fit the particular employee. Sadly, despite his role as a former defence minister, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, now seems confused as to how the amendments to the Workplace Relations Act that he introduced earlier this week will operate. As Senator Abetz pointed out, Mr Beazley seemed unsure, when interviewed on 6PR on Monday, whether reservists would receive unpaid or paid leave under his amendments. And the comments one day later from Mr Ferguson, the shadow minister for defence science and personnel, showed that Labor still does not understand the laws and arrangements governing reserve service. All that this does is cause unnecessary doubt about the contribution reservists can make to our efforts in East Timor at the moment.This bill will not assist the Reserve and it certainly will not assist Australia's efforts in East Timor. The agenda here is not practical; it is actually ideologically driven. It calls for centralising outcomes, not for the flexibility necessary in the modern work force. And it is not necessary here, it is inappropriate and it flies in the face of modern workplace relations. It was a pillar of this country in 1901 but, as the opposition still do not understand, the world has changed. They live under the shade of the tree of knowledge at Barcaldine and they cannot get out of the shade.Opposition senators interjecting—84MMason, Sen BrettSenator MASON—Within your lifetime the entire workplace relations system will change. It has to, to accord with flexible modern workplace arrangements.17:52:009766Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—I think that a number of contributions this afternoon have been somewhat concerning—to me anyway. Probably the most concerning was the one by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence. In fact, he spent most of his time—I think some 16 minutes of his 20 minutes—talking about problems in the Labor Party and suggesting that Mr Beazley would not be the leader of the Labor Party. In fact, he said that Mr Beazley was suffering a declining support level within the ALP. Let me assure you that that is not so.I do not want to spend 16 minutes talking about that, but I want to make just one comment about Senator Abetz. We all know over here that he has a thermometer firmly placed in Senator Newman and he checks the Fahrenheit level every day. I suggest that Senator Newman's body temperature probably dropped to about 90 degrees Fahrenheit today. Senator Abetz is jumping around over there, just waiting for the opportunity to replace her. I do not want to say too much about that because there has already been one point of order taken on relevance—and the senator in the chair said it was okay to go on for 16 minutes with this sort of drivel. Senator Abetz ought to be the last person in here to talk about the demise or decline of anyone on the frontbench—that is, until he gets there himself.I am concerned about his contribution for another reason. There are a number of issues at stake here. Firstly, is it the case that we have adequate reserve levels in this country? I think the answer is no. Do we have the proper legislative provisions to support those reserves? I think the answer is no. Do we have a situation where we have to look at these issues with some urgency? The answer is certainly yes. The East Timor situation surfaced quite quickly on us. Somebody made the comment years ago that the defence forces in this country, or in any country, are an insurance policy that you hope never to use. That is very much like our household insurance policies; it is very much like the policies we have on our cars and, maybe, on ourselves. We hope that we do not ever have to use those policies. Certainly, for most of my lifetime we have not had to do that in this country. It has been a long time since Australia has had to participate in any forward deployment. In fact, for most of the years since Vietnam, Australia has had a pretty lucky time of it. It could well be argued that Australia and this end of the world has had a very lucky time since 1945. As a result, we have spent progressively less of our economy on defence, much less than we really should have. Both sides of politics are guilty of that charge. What we have done is rely on highly trained individuals who have filled the gap when necessary as reserves in our forces in all three arms of the service.As a nation, we have concentrated our defence assets and scarce resources on buying equipment that takes years to procure. We have the strongest air force in this region and we know that it takes years to get new aircraft and even longer to train some of the pilots. We have built a powerful navy. We have a powerful navy for a very good reason: we are an island continent and we have a number of island possessions that we need to look after. We have spent a lot of money building naval assets in this country out of our scarce defence budget—a defence budget that has been $10 billion virtually for as long as I can remember, no matter which party has been in power. What we have always relied on is that, cometh the hour, we would be able to pull reserves out and use them. The Timor situation has crept up on us. You could probably say it has galloped up on us.The defence department has done a pretty good job with available resources. The fact of the matter is that we have committed the 1st Brigade and the 3rd Brigade. Those two brigades are our front-line army resources. The 1st Brigade, sent up to Darwin by the Labor government as part of the army presence in the North—the APIN project—is now fully deployed in East Timor. The 1st Brigade has traditionally been on 180 days notice for any deployment. That had to be reduced to 28 days and then to 72 hours. It is now deployed; it is out of Darwin; it is in East Timor. The 3rd Brigade, which has always had a much higher state of readiness—as I understand it, between 28 days and 72 hours; certainly the latter in the course of this year—is no longer in Townsville; it is now in East Timor.The problem we now have is one of rotation. The other week Senator Newman made it clear to the Senate that we will have no problems with rotation. I hope that her confidence is well founded because I cannot see where we can find two fully trained brigades to go into East Timor should this situation continue well beyond Christmas. I cannot see where we are going to find the replacement forces for rotation. If another problem were to evidence itself somewhere else and we needed to have some military response to it, we would have to pull troops out of East Timor to deal with it.I can understand the decision making that took place in the Howard government some three years or so ago when the Ready Reserve was ended. I thought it was a bad decision, but I can understand people saying, `We don't need to pay our insurance premiums any longer; we should be okay for a few more years. For budgetary reasons we are going to end this scheme. In fact we will save some money out of it, which means that we can buy'—as I understand it—`some of the better equipment that is needed for 3rd Brigade and that we can actually speed up the process by which we put better equipment into 1st Brigade, in particular, to aircondition the tanks to make them more tropically friendly for the crews who have to operate them, to buy the ASLAV equipment that 1st Brigade desperately needed and to speed up the process for 3rd Brigade of sorting out the problems with the very old equipment that they have.' In fact, quite a large number of the armoured personnel carriers in East Timor that we see on TV each night served in Vietnam. They are 35 and 40 years old. They are well maintained but, as with all equipment that is well maintained, they suffer from an age problem.I can understand that the government took the view that money that was spent on the reserves up until 1996 was money that could have been used somewhere else. In defence budgets, it is always the case that you can spend and spend but you just do not have the dollars for it. One of the things, however, that we now have to seriously address is the problem of the reserve levels in this country, and it has to be addressed at a number of different levels. Firstly, we have to ensure that there is adequate training for members of the reserve so that we can entice them into the forces, keep them in the forces and ensure that their level of training is such that we can use them if the hour comes when that needs to be the case. Indeed, I think that one of the things that must be heartbreaking for a lot of the defence personnel is to see that, quite often, people who are trained as reservists, for one reason or another—usually to do with employment—have to leave that service after a number of years, and it will take a length of time to be able to get someone trained up to do that job.On the other level—and this is something that we can do something about here—Senator Collins's bill, in my view, puts in a proper legislative framework to give those people who make the contribution and the sacrifice of joining the reserves much more security than they currently have in terms of employment for when they want to return to their normal work. The comment made here by some of the speakers was that these sorts of arrangements had been made in Telstra and one or two of the government agencies for not all but many of the reserve personnel. I would have thought that, since the first week in September, one of the highest priorities for the government would have been to get this right and to ensure that there is going to be an adequate force level to, at the very least, be able to go to Timor and give some relief to those two brigades that are there right now.We have heard the government talk about raising other battalions up to a state of readiness. I can only say that we really need to have much more than a battalion at readiness; we are going to need to have at least one full brigade. Even with one full brigade, the problem in Timor is going to be such that, without any fighting or any of the rest of it, we will still need to ensure that peace with one fully armed brigade well into next year. If the problems with the militia materialise—and I hope they do not—we may indeed need to have two brigades up there fully deployed and with other resources that we will have to find, presumably from our allies.In the last six weeks this government should have been dealing with, at the very least, the issues of where the reserves are going, their security of employment and other necessary important provisions that will ensure that they remain within the defence forces. Over the years, the level of reserves in the forces has been dropping each year. This is a worrying trend that must be reversed. It must be reversed because those soldiers who are now deployed in Timor will need some relief in the very near future and so that we can restrict our defence budget. I support, as far as possible, restricting our defence budget, so that we can spend money on education, health and all those other things that also have budgets that cry out for dollars.One of the key elements in this debate here today is that Senator Collins's bill addresses a path that the government really should have had us back here addressing a couple of weeks ago to at least give some security to some of those people who are currently in the reserves and others who wish to join. Unless we can build up the morale of our defence forces—and the reserves are an important part of it—our defence bills in the future will be extremely expensive. They will be more and more expensive as time goes on. I think that Senator Collins's bill addresses a part of the problem—not all of it, but a part of the problem. As a consequence of that, I welcome the bill's introduction here today. I think it is important that we get this through as quickly as we can. I know that there are other speakers who wish to address this today. (Time expired)Debate interrupted.Documents97689768The following orders of the day relating to government documents were considered:Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency—Quarterly report for the period 5 February to 31 March 1999 (First). Motion of Senator Bartlett to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Bartlett in continuation.National Health and Medical Research Council—Grants for 1999. Motion of Senator Bartlett to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Bartlett in continuation.Department of Family and Community Services—Evaluation of stakeholders' experience with the use of the tables for the assessment of work-related impairment for disability support pension—Final report. Motion of Senator West to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator Bartlett the debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business.Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—Report for 1998-99. Motion of Senator Crossin to take note of document agreed to.Telstra Corporation Limited—Report for 1998-99. Motion of Senator Crossin to take note of document agreed to.Reserve Bank of Australia—Equal employment opportunity program—Report for 1998-99. Motion of Senator Crossin to take note of document agreed to.Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council—Report for 1998-99, including a report for 1998-99 on operation of the Rural Adjustment Scheme. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator O'Brien. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator O'Brien in continuation.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—Report for 1998-99. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Bartlett. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Bartlett in continuation.General business orders of the day nos 7—9, 12 and 13 relating to government documents were called on but no motion was moved.Committees97699769The following orders of the day relating to committee reports and government responses were considered:Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund—Joint Statutory Committee—Report—Interim report for the s.206(d) inquiry: Proceedings of conference on 12 March 1999. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Ferris) to take note of report agreed to. Public Works—Joint Statutory Committee—Reports— CSIRO Riverside Corporate Park, North Ryde, NSW—Joint Research Complex for CSIRO Molecular Science and Food Science Australia CSIRO Division of Building Construction and Engineering development works at Riverside Corporate Park, North Ryde, NSW.Motion of Senator Calvert to take note of reports agreed to.Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee—Report—Jobs for the regions: Inquiry into regional employment and unemployment. Motion of Senator Mackay to take note of report called on. On the motion of Senator O'Brien the debate was adjourned till the next day of sitting.Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—25th report—Eight treaties tabled on 11 August 1999. Motion of Senator Quirke to take note of report agreed to.Adjournment976910000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—Order! I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.976918:05:009769Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I would like to talk to the Workplace Relations Amendment (Australian Defence Force Service and Training) Bill that Senator Jacinta Collins is putting forward. Without entering into too much controversy, I must say as a former national serviceman or `nasho' that I am well aware of our reserve forces and the great record that they have had over the years. You can go right back to the VDC—and I do not reckon a lot of you would even remember what that was, but that was the Volunteer Defence Corps. We then had the Citizen Military Forces and, of course, who could forget the great job that our militia did up on the Kokoda Trail, in Papua New Guinea, during the Second World War. They were reservists who were thrown in at the deep end, and they were the first ones to turn back the Japanese. So the reserve forces in Australia have had a long and distinguished history.I must say, without being too critical, that I thought some of the comments made here today by the opposition did amount to a tad of scaremongering and nitpicking. That seems to have been the thrust of the debate since we have had troops in East Timor. I really must say that I am disappointed in this. We have quite a few specialist reservists in Tasmania and, as you know, Mr Acting Deputy President Sherry, some of them are already in East Timor, particularly on the transport side. One of the transport squadrons is based in the area of my electorate that I have my office, at Warrane, and I must say that I have never had a reservist come to me complaining about the fact that they have been badly treated by their employers. The way the government has approached it over the years, to allow negotiation between the employer and the reservists, has worked very well and is the preferred objective of the government.So, while Senator Collins may have had the best of intentions, I really do not think the bill proposed here today has done a lot to help the situation. It really has not fostered the bipartisan approach that was promised in this matter by the former defence minister, now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley. The last thing that our people in East Timor want to know, whether they be reservists or permanent troops, is that the government and the opposition back home are at odds about what is happening. I find it most unusual that the former defence minister did not even know whether reservists were paid, were going to be paid, whether their employers paid them or whether they got double pay. But, of course, we know that reservists who volunteer to serve are paid a full military salary, and if they are deployed as part of a peace enforcement mission they receive the same tax free salary and allowances as their counterparts in the regulars. And so they should, and they should receive the same repatriation benefits when they return.I listened with interest to Senator Quirke talking about what may be needed next year. I was of the understanding that the United Nations were going to put together a sufficient force and that some of our troops would be returning early in the new year. I know that things change on a weekly basis as to what is happening, but I was of the understanding that there was going to be a much more significant input from the United Nations. But, in any event, I was interested to hear some of the debate today. I say once again that I just do not believe it is doing the opposition any good whatsoever, with the lack of support they seem to be getting and the nitpicking that seems to be going on about our troops in East Timor. I just hope that we do not have any more of it and that we give our troops the full support they deserve, on a bipartisan basis.977018:10:009770O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—On 30 September the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Senator Ian Macdonald, tabled a report prepared by Mr Stephen Skehill on the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Mr Laurie Foley to the position of Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Compliance. The Skehill report is a damning document. It is damning of the CASA board, it is damning of a consultant to the board, Mr Wes Willoughby, and it is damning of the performance of the recruitment agency Spencer Stuart. I plan to deal with all these matters in some detail to ensure that all the facts are properly placed in the public record—as they should be.There were a number of candidates for the position of Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Compliance that was advertised in the national press on 1 and 2 March last year. I will deal with the circumstances surrounding five of those applicants. They are: Mr X, a senior officer with the authority; Mr Y; Mr Z; applicant 12, a CASA employee; and applicant 33, who was also a CASA employee. According to Mr Skehill's report, Mr X was acting in a senior position that led him to the view that he would be seriously considered for the safety compliance job.Mr X's personal assistant contacted Spencer Stuart some time prior to 15 May and requested a copy of the selection criteria for the safety compliance position. The assistant was advised that no criteria were available at that time. Mr X then personally contacted Spencer Stuart—again some time before 15 May—about his intention to apply for the position. He was told that he should lodge only an expression of interest. In an interview with Mr Skehill, Mr X said he was told by Spencer Stuart that if he was a serious contender—based on an assessment of his expression of interest letter—he would be sent the selection criteria and invited to lodge a formal application.Mr X sent an expression of interest to Spencer Stuart on 15 May and that letter was acknowledged on 19 May. At that point, Mr X was clearly an applicant for the position of Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Compliance. However, on that same day—19 May—Mr Wes Willoughby advised Mr Mike Wheatley, a principal of Spencer Stuart, that Mr X was not up to the job.It is not clear who initiated the conversation between Mr Willoughby and Mr Wheatley about Mr X, but Mr Willoughby's comments clearly and significantly damaged Mr X's prospects. However, Mr Skehill's report finds that there was no basis for Mr Willoughby's comments about the performance of Mr X. In an addendum to his main report, Mr Skehill states at paragraph 3.13:Mr X had been acting for some time in a position with duties that corresponded in many respects to those of the position of Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Compliance.If his performance while acting in that position was of an unacceptable standard, one would expect that he would have either been counselled [which he says was not the case] or removed or replaced [which similarly did not happen].Skehill states further:In the ordinary course, therefore, it was reasonable for Mr X to entertain the expectation that he would be regarded as a serious candidate and afforded an interview.Mr Skehill also noted that it appeared likely that Mr Wheatley had not sought comment from anyone else in the authority about Mr X's performance or his suitability for the position of Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Compliance. In fact, evidence to Mr Skehill from Mr Pike, a former deputy director of the authority, suggested that it might be the view of those board members best qualified to judge that Mr X had performed at a high level in difficult circumstances. This is in sharp contrast to Mr Willoughby's advice to Mr Wheatley.On 29 May, Mr Willoughby then told Mr Wheatley that Mr X had in fact taken another position, inferring that he was thus out of the running for the safety compliance post. Again, Mr Skehill found this claim to be incorrect. He states in his report in paragraph 3.7:Mr Willoughby's advice to Mr Wheatley on 29 May 1998 that Mr X was to be appointed to the position he now holds was wrong.Despite formally applying for the safety compliance position and despite acting—successfully, it seems—in a similar role in the authority, Mr X did not appear on any list provided by Mr Willoughby to the CASA board on 19 June. Nor did his name appear in the final Spencer Stuart report to the board on 26 June. Mr Skehill noted that despite his position in the authority neither Mr Toller nor the CASA board even knew Mr X was a candidate for the job.I now turn to Mr Y. Mr Y was interviewed by Mr Wheatley in Sydney on 11 May. He was regarded as a strong candidate. Mr Toller again met with Mr Y, this time in Adelaide, on 23 June. At that meeting Mr Y said he told Mr Toller he wanted the safety compliance job and had gained the impression from Mr Wheatley that he was the leading contender. According to the Skehill report, Mr Y considered this second meeting only preliminary. Mr Y was invited to Canberra for a further interview, but this was in relation to another position. Mr Skehill notes in his report at paragraph 5.98:. . . it is a pity that he [Mr Y] was not told on or before 23 June that the interview held on that date was regarded as the final interview.Candidate Z told Mr Skehill that he did not even apply for the position because there was no point in doing so. He said Mr Willoughby had told him that the successful applicant would not come from within the authority.It appears that the board determined that applicants 12 and 33 should be interviewed but it is unclear why that decision was taken. Mr Toller told Mr Skehill that he thought that not enough attention had been paid to authori ty staff in the selection process. Mr Pike said he thought that applicants 12 and 33 should be interviewed because, if they were not, they would cause trouble. While Mr Pyne—a board member—said he insisted that 12 and 33 be interviewed because they rated third and fourth on the overall list for the compliance position, Mr Skehill also found that some board members considered that applicants 12 and 33 would be interviewed by Mr Toller, as were Mr Y and Mr Foley. However, both were given only a preliminary interview by Mr Willoughby and Mr Wheatley.It is clear that the actual recruitment process did not give Mr X, Mr Y, Mr Z and applicants 12 and 33 the same opportunity to press their claim for the Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Compliance position as was afforded Mr Foley. All of the abovementioned candidates were disadvantaged by the lack of process to a greater or lesser degree. Mr X was literally excluded from all but a preliminary list by Mr Wheatley as he appeared on no candidate list. Mr Wheatley claimed this was an `administrative oversight'.While Mr Y was considered a strong candidate and was interviewed on 11 May and 23 June, he did not know and was not told, as he should have been, that this second interview was the final interview for the job. Mr Z was literally talked out of applying by Mr Willoughby. Applicants 12 and 33 were interviewed only by Mr Wheatley and Mr Willoughby, not by Mr Toller, as some board members expected. So the process of assessing the top candidates was at best haphazard and at worst a total shambles. Mr Willoughby also appears to have played a key role in this process and I plan to deal with that matter at a later time.While these candidates lost out because of poor process, that was not the key disadvantage they faced. On 11 May, Mr Foley wrote to Mr Willoughby advising him:. . . I am seriously contemplating applying for the Assistant Director position.I therefore think it would be appropriate that I am no longer sent any material in respect to the Assistant Director positions.Despite this letter, Mr Willoughby faxed Mr Foley an organisational chart showing the major positions and officers who, at that stage, were intended to report to the Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Compliance on the afternoon of 25 May. Later on the same day Mr Willoughby faxed Mr Foley a note headed `Some issues involved in structuring compliance'. Then on 3 June, Mr Willoughby faxed Mr Foley a five-page document, of which Mr Skehill could only locate the first page, headed `Some issues involved in structuring compliance'.Then Mr Willoughby faxed to Mr Foley on 12 June an eight-page document containing considerable details about the Aviation Safety Compliance Division, regional and other offices, staffing numbers and an organisational chart. Clearly, both Mr Willoughby and Mr Foley also discussed the contents of these documents over the abovementioned period. Mr Willoughby then lodged the paper flowing from his collaboration with Mr Foley—and, it appears, others—for the consideration of the CASA board at its meeting on 19 June, and he advised the board:. . . subject to any changes to the attached proposal, I propose that the structure be adopted when the new Assistant Director Aviation Safety Compliance takes up office.This matter goes to the question of Mr Foley and his position on the CASA board and I will go to that matter in more detail at a later time when I will continue my remarks on this matter. (Time expired)977218:20:009772Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—The Prime Minister's record on women is a stinker! This bold statement does not in fact come from me or from my Labor colleagues; it comes from an opinion piece in the Australian dated 6 October by Sarah Maddison of the Women's Electoral Lobby. This comment raises all sorts of aspects and appropriate reflections on events in this place over the last couple of days where we saw an amazing outburst by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women say that she felt WEL was a Labor front. The truth is that I think the Prime Minister's record on women is a stinker and it is especially apparent in his treatment of women in sport. That is what I would like to focus on during my contribution to this adjournment debate.When the coalition was elected, one of the first things Mr Howard did was scrap the prime ministerial Women in Sport award. This award was very important in raising the profile of Australia's female athletes and creating role models for girls and young women. In fact, retaining rewards like the prime ministerial Women in Sport award is one of the specific recommendations in a report entitled An Illusory Image which traversed issues relating to the lack of coverage of women's sport. It was requested by the Australian Sports Commission and launched by the coalition back in 1996.Despite the importance of this report—at least former Liberal sports minister Warwick Smith thought it was important—the government, unfortunately, has ignored virtually every one of its recommendations since. Now, after 3½ years of coalition government, we have sports minister No. 3 saying that something should be done about the lack of coverage of women's sport and the lack of public recognition of women and girls in sport. It is a bit hard to take, isn't it? Minister Kelly's record on women's sport is as uninspiring as the Prime Minister's.The sports minister recently launched the coalition's policy on women and girls in sport called Active Women. Yes, the minister says, women are underrepresented in all aspects of sport and recreation and yes, they do face barriers to their participation in physical activities. The minister's sports policy clearly states that one of the government's principal objectives is improving the status, and greater public recognition, of women and girls in sport. I can only observe that they have an absolutely bizarre way of achieving this objective.To help improve public recognition of women's sport, the government scrapped the prime ministerial Women in Sport awards, as I have mentioned, and to help assess the level of female participation in sport they allowed the Sports Commission to downgrade the Women in Sport Unit—not exactly positive steps towards improving the status of women in sport in this country. During the Senate estimates hearings the minister's department seemed unaware of the importance of the Sydney Olympics for women. Sydney 2000 marks the centenary of women's participation in the Olympic Games. It was only after repeated demands by the Labor Party that the government belatedly decided to commemorate this very important component of the Olympic Games.The government has also failed to provide sufficient funding for Womensport Australia. This important and highly creditable organisation asked for $200,000 over three years but were given a mere $50,000 for one year, with no future commitment. The sum of $50,000 is not enough to run a national sporting organisation, considering that Australia is hosting the Olympics and the demand for their resources and services will be increased, particularly in the environment of this report being handed down. A range of very serious and specific agenda items are in the public arena for consideration by the government.Another bizarre message emanating from the minister for sport is that female athletes should pose or play in revealing costumes in order to gain sponsorship. Whilst this is often debated with some triviality, at the launch of her policy on women's sport the minister told journalists that female athletes should emulate Russian tennis player Anna Kournikova, who, according to the minister, is able to attract enormous crowds because she is willing to push minimal attire and use her sex appeal. So the minister does not think it matters whether you are actually any good at sport as long as you are willing to do whatever it takes to get sponsorship dollars. This is ridiculous and short-sighted. There is so much more to women's sport. If a male minister for sport said these things, I would be outraged. For a female sports minister to express these thoughts, I am outraged and I am also profoundly disappointed.As a result of the government's inability or unwillingness to address the structural imbalances in sport, sportswomen remain second-class citizens in the Australian sporting community. Australia's magnificent achievement in winning the netball world championship against New Zealand was an incredible event in our sports history. It was not tainted in any way—because nothing can take away that achievement—but how tacky it is when politicians who buy into the process of celebrating sport get it wrong. How awful it is. The letter of congratulations, which has been widely reported now in the press, made a mistake about the type of sport that was being played. How can the Prime Minister's office send out letters without checking them first for accuracy?One of the most astounding things about this whole issue was that this wasn't the first time it had happened. I am convinced now that there is some glorious computer form letter constructed for the purposes of congratulating people on their sporting achievements, but somehow people keep forgetting to change the critical word in the last paragraph relating to the actual sport being played. As we know, cricket is very dear to Mr Howard. Perhaps cricket sits at the bottom of the default system of that particular computer program. Those who follow these events in the media will know that the letter congratulating the Hockeyroos congratulated them on their cricketing success.After discovering this botch, no doubt there was a high degree of embarrassment within the Prime Minister's office. I look forward to letters emanating from that place that are not only accurate but absolutely resplendent in their attention to detail from here on in. The point here is very much one of understanding how important our role is as parliamentarians, as leaders in this country, to acknowledge and respect those achievements. We have all had a bit of fun ridiculing the Prime Minister's mistake in this respect and I think it has reflected very badly on his office, despite the effort, no doubt, being perceived by some as of good intent. But the issue is this: we must take seriously any opportunity we have to support and promote women's sport. The leaders of this country, the government and the Prime Minister, should reflect on the incredibly positive result that was derived from using a parliamentary function to focus on the achievement of women in sport. That is part of the role we have to play in raising that profile and supporting those people.As a result of the government's Fawlty Towers approach to sport, the media has been in a bit of a frenzy in lampooning these letters of congratulation. This needs to be reflected upon very seriously within all offices of the government. They need to rectify that problem. The minister should be acting on the numerous recommendations about raising the profile of female athletes and providing detailed, concrete policies instead of his wishy-washy rhetoric, platitudes and just getting it plain wrong.The Labor Party put in place a raft of measures and funded programs to assist women's sport. We created an environment based on equity of access. We created sporting institutions and infrastructure that allowed women's sport to flourish and overcome the historical barriers and obstacles that characterised our sporting past. But the coalition is not a forward looking party. Mr Howard's fondness for the fifties is reflected in his policies towards women in general and women's sport in particular. (Time expired)977418:30:009774O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—by leave—I wish to make a very short contribution again in this debate. As I was saying, this matter that I have been referring to goes to the question of Mr Foley and his position on the CASA board. I will go into that matter in more detail at a later time. But from the point of view of the selection process, it is clear that Mr Foley's prospects of succeeding in his application for the job were significantly enhanced by his participation as a board member on the development of the job description for the position for which he was applying. Clearly, no other candidate for the position of Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Compliance, had access to this detail or input into the development of the safety compliance position enjoyed by Mr Foley. I therefore fail to understand how Mr Skehill could conclude that Mr Foley was the best candidate, based on the evidence before him, both from the point of view of the recruitment process and the unfair and significant advantage provided to Mr Foley through his access to details of the position through Mr Willoughby. In my view, Mr Skehill's report, rather than the conclusions that he has drawn, give the minister, Mr Anderson, no option but to direct CASA to again stand Mr Foley aside and establish a new selection process for the safety compliance position.Senate adjourned at 6.32 p.m.Documents97759775The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Acts Interpretation Act—Statements [2] pursuant to section 34C relating to the delay in presentation of a report—Central Land Council Report for 1998-99.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Part— 105, dated 13 [3], 16 [4], 17, 21 [3], 22 [5], 23 [11], 24 and 27 [4] September 1999. 106, dated 8 [2] and 27 September 1999.Answers to Questions on Notice9776The following answers to questions were circulated:9776(Question No. 1222)12229776O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 5 August 1999:(1) Did a trial regional forum, as part of the Regional Forums Australia Program (RFAP), take place in the Spencer Gulf region of South Australia on 22 and 23 July 1999: (a) if so: (i) where did the forum take place, (ii) who attended the forum, and (iii) what organisation did each attendee represent; and (b) if not: (i) when is the trial forum now scheduled to take place, and (ii) why was the forum postponed.(2) (a) What was the agenda for the trial forum; and (b) was a report produced of the forum's proceedings, as was required by the contract with the forum facilitator, if so, can a copy of the report from the trial forum be provided.(3) If there has not been a report or record of the forum produced: (a) why not; and (b) when will the report be available.(4) (a) What was the cost of the trial forum; and (b) can a detailed breakdown of that cost be provided.9776Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Yes (a) (i) Whyalla, (ii) and (iii) a list of the attendees and the organisations they represented is provided attached.(2) (a) and (b) Copies of the agenda and the record of forum proceedings are available from the Table Office.(3) Not applicable.(4) (a) and (b) the cost of the forum and a breakdown of the cost is attached.ATTACHMENT ANameOrganisationLizaAlbionOffice of Senator The Honourable Ian MacdonaldChrisArbonCentrelinkPeterArnoldPort Pirie Regional CouncilRhondaBakerTelstraJoyBaluchMayor-City of Pt AugustaRussellBambridgeSpencer Institute TAFEFayeBarrettSA Office of Local GovernmentPaulBarrettATSICDr AndrewBeerFlinders University of South AustraliaJackBestDepartment of Health & Aged CareNickBlazowDepartment of Health & Aged CareRitaBlieshkePort Pirie Regional CouncilBillBoehmRoxby Downs CouncilConBoekelDepartment of Environment & HeritageNickBogiatzisDepartment of Transport and Regional Services Darrell BootheyMain Street Coordinator-WhyallaRobBradleyDepartment of Transport and Regional Services LynBreuerMember for GilesGeoff BucklandAustralian Workers Union-Whyalla/WoomeraJeffBurgessNorthern Areas CouncilRonBurnettAction Engineering-Whyalla Mark CantDistrict Council of KimbaCavinaCartwrightPrimary Industry & Resources SADarylCearnsThe Flinders Ranges CouncilJennyChadwickPrime Minister & CabinetFred CookPrimary Industry & Resources SAHenryCroftButtlingarra Aboriginal CorporationBarryCroftButtlingarra Aboriginal CorporationLaurieCurtisDistrict Council of Tumby BaySueDalla SantaNorthern Regional Development BoardBarbaraDerhamArea Consultative CommitteeStephenDryChamber of Commerce-Pt LincolnMaurieDwyerAustralian Workers UnionBrian EltonBrian Elton & AssociatesJamesEvansBrian Elton & AssociatesRodFaircloughSpencer Gulf AquacultureJimFisherDistrict Council Yorke PeninsulaBrianFogartyPort Pirie Regional CouncilBruce FrancisDistrict Council of Franklin HarbourKevinGentPrimary Industry & Resources SAKymGernerBrian Elton & AssociatesFrankGillingsDistrict Council of CleveIan GordonDistrict Council of Cooper PedyProfessor StephenHallFlinders UniversityJohnHarenState Development SADesHarrisDepartment of Transport and Regional ServicesHaydenHartPichi Richi RailwayBobHarveyDepartment of Employment Workplace Relations & Small BusinessBobHoganDepartment of Education, Training & Youth Affairs-AdelaideRobertHorneDepartment of Education, Training & Youth AffairsEddieHughesWhyalla City CouncilEugeneHurleyBishop of Port PirieBrianHurnThe Barossa CouncilBrianHutchinsonPort Pirie Regional Development BoardColleenHutchinsonNorthern Regional Development BoardTonyIrvineDistrict Council of CedunaPamelaJonesDepartment of Family & Community ServicesRobertKeaneFlinders University of South AustraliaBarryKearsleyDistrict Council of CumminsMaryKearsleyDistrict Council of Lower Eyre PeninsulaPeterKellyPort Pirie Regional Development BoardTomKennedyBank SA-Port PirieThe Hon. RobKerinDeputy Premier, Minister for Primary Industries, Natural Resources and Regional DevelopmentOnkoKingmaDepartment of Agriculture Fisheries & ForestryMaryKosiakCentrelinkJudithLa ForgiaChamber of Commerce Port PirieDavid LaneDistrict Council of Streaky BayMichelleLucasDepartment of Education, Training & Youth Affairs-Pt AugustaNewtonLuscombeDistrict Council of Le Hunte Senator The Hon. IanMacdonaldMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local GovernmentMarkMalcolmPort Pirie Regional Development BoardTrevor MaySA Department of Industry and TradeMaxMcHughFlinders Ranges CouncilBillMcIntoshOutback Areas Community Development TrustTrevorMcLeodDistrict Council of Cooper PedyLorraineMcLoughlinOffice of Employment & YouthMariannMcNamaraDepartment of Education, Training & Youth AffairsIanMcSporranCity of Port AugustaTrudiMeakinsDepartment of Transport & Regional Services RobertMellorCentre for Local Government- University of Technology-SydneyHarryMillerPt Lincoln Kuju CDEPMikeMillnTransport SADonMorrisOffice of Senator The Honourable Ian MacdonaldWayne MossopSA Department of Primary Industries and ResourcesBarry MoutonDepartment of Employment Workplace Relations & Small BusinessJohnMundySouth Australian Regional Development AssociationSimonMurnaneDepartment of Transport and Regional Services Siobhan MuttonPlanning SATonyNeilsonMid North Regional HealthIanNightingaleEyre Regional Development BoardBobNorrrisDistrict Council of Franklin HarbourBruceO'MeagherDepartment of Industry Science & ResourcesWilliam OatesDistrict Council of Copper CoastBrenton PainAusIndustryJeffPearsonEyre Regional Development BoardFredPedlerCity of Port LincolnHelenPeelDepartment of Finance & AdministrationDonPfitznerMid North Regional Development BoardTerryPriceABC Radio-Pt PirieCarolProcterSA Office of Local GovernmentJimRamseyATSICAbulRizviDepartment of Immigration & Multicultural AffairsAndy RobbDivision of State Aboriginal AffairsTrevor RoockeDistrict Council of Mt RemarkableTriciaRushtonDepartment of Family & Community ServicesJohnSchumannDistrict Council of CleveJoSchumannDepartment of Veteran AffairsWayneSchuttlofelNorthern Regional Development BoardPamSeamanDepartment of Education & Training-WhyallaMarcSeidelAnangu Pitjantjatjara ServicesJohnShaneDistrict Council Copper CoastGeorgieSharpDepartment of Education Training & Employment-WhyallaChrisSheedyDepartment of Health & Aged CareGeoffSheridanDistrict Council Kapunda & LightJohnSimcockAirport Technical ServicesIanSmithSA Information Economy Policy OfficeJohnSmithMayor-Whyalla CouncilColinStruckStruck Aquaculture-Port Augusta VanceThomasEyre Peninsula Local Government AssociationPeterToddTransport SAJohnTonkinDepartment of Immigration & Multicultural AffairsRichardTrevenaATSICGregTurnerFreight CorpPhilTylerWhyalla Economic Development BoardGeoffUptonAustradeSemaVarovaDepartment of Transport and Regional Services JackVelthausenWhyalla TAFEBarryWakelinMember for GreyDarylWarmanFlinders Pastoral Rural Counselling ServiceJohnWarnerUniversity of South Australia-StudentJohnWatsonWhyalla Economic Development BoardGlenWatsonCentrelinkWarwickWelshYorke Peninsula Regional Development BoardJohnWharffDistrict Council of Streaky BayJimWhiteBHP-WhyallaDavidWhittenburySA Department of Industry & Trade ShelaghWhittlestonDepartment of Education, Training & Youth AffairsBarryWilkinsDistrict Council of LeHunteMarciaWilliamsCentrelinkDavidWilliamsonDepartment of Communications IT & ArtsCraigWilsonMid North Regional Development BoardATTACHMENT DCOST OF SPENCER GULF AREA TRIAL REGIONAL FORUM AND BREAKDOWN OF COSTSITEMCOSTFacilitator*, including travel$20,374Venue hire and catering$6,408Bus hire$447Printing, photocopying, etc.$2,667TOTAL$29,896* The Facilitator, Brian Elton and Associates, was engaged to: undertake lead up work for six weeks prior to the forum (including preparing the Spencer Gulf Area Regional Future Brief); organise and facilitate the forum; and work with the region on identifying and progressing priorities identified for up to four months after the forum. It is estimated that the work done by the facilitator on the forum itself (preparation, facilitation etc.) amounted to approximately $15,000 of the total consultancy fee.Spencer Gulf Regional ForumWhyalla, 22nd-23rd July 1999Summary Report of OutcomesDay 1- July 22nd WelcomeTerry Price-Regional Program Manager, Australian Broadcasting CorporationHenry Croft+ Administrator, Buttlingarra Aboriginal CorporationJohn Smith-Mayor Whyalla City CouncilFederal Minister's Address(Provided as Appendix 1).State Minister's ResponseThe Honourable Rob KerinDeputy Premier, Minister for Primary Industries, Natural Resources & Regional DevelopmentMr Kerin welcomed Senator Macdonald, Lyn Breuer-Member of Giles, Barry Wakelin-Member for Grey, Mayor John Smith and forum participants. His response included the following points:. He acknowledged the Federal commitment to regional development over the last two budgets.. The forum process represents an opportunity to deliver a message to Canberra on how funding could be best used in the region.. A lot of thought is required to achieve the outcomes that add value to the region communities. It is acknowledged that the government has not always made the best decisions on regional development in the past.. Care should be taken to ensure that the proposed Rural Transaction Centres don't impact on local businesses.. The Federal Governments Regional Economic Development Organisation's (REDO's) initiative lacked synergy in a region which is extremely large, diverse and includes coastal cities and remote areas. There should be care taken not to revisit the confusion that was created by having two layers of regional development bodies in the same area. There is a good system of state and local Regional Development Boards and it should be recognised that one size doesn't fit all.. He commented on the difficulty for the Federal Government in providing flexible programs and acknowledged contributions made in a number of areas including: rail reform, Agriculture Advancing Australia and telecommunications infrastructure funds.. The State Government has reviewed Regional Development in South Australia with the preparation of the Regional Development Task Force Report. This has brought about a changed definition of Regional Development that considers regions in economic, social and environmental terms.. The State Government has a number of ways to assist regions and has established the Office of Regional Development.. Examples of current issues in the Spencer Gulf area include: . The Eyre Peninsula region has strong growth in aquaculture. Towns such as Cowell have received a strong employment boost with the introduction of aquaculture activities and one micro-economic indicator is the fact that training is now required to play for the B grade football team. . Land access for the Aboriginal population is a key issue for the region. . The Asia crisis has impacted on the mineral sectors of the Upper Spencer Gulf, however some further development has occurred at Roxby and Beverley and the potential exists for magnesium mining at Pt Augusta.. In closing he made two requests: . Firstly that all three levels of government work together and focus on outcomes . Secondly that all leaders be positive about what happens in regional areas through improved marketing of the region. Decision-makers want to hear positive messages, although it is acknowledged that government requires a "belt" from time to time and some regions need more assistance than others.SESSION 1Presentation and Discussion of Spencer Gulf Area and its Constituent Regions Regional Future BriefSession objective: To present and discuss the current context of the Spencer Gulf Area and its constituent regions and to identify area specific economic, social and environmental priorities.Spencer Gulf AreaBarry Wakelin, Federal Member for GreyBarry Wakelin, Federal member for Grey, provided a description of key issues in the region from a personal perspective. His presentation included the following:. The Federal seat of Grey comprises 92% of South Australia. He has been the elected member since 1993 and comes from Kimba on the Eyre Peninsula.. The Government is committed to the region and now has stronger regional representation than in 1996 including the recent appointment of John Anderson as Deputy Prime Minister. Barry Wakelin is a member the steering committee for a regional Summit to be conducted in October this year.. Great diversity has brought great strength in the region and self-reliance is a trademark.. Some government programs, which have not been high cost, have demonstrated success including: The Job Network (50% improvement over 12 months compared to the CES) and Work for the Dole schemes.. Development issues in the electorate have included: Western Mining, Beverley, Aquaculture and other existing industries. (70% of new investment comes from existing business). Long term commitment to the region by Government is important. The Government anticipates that there will be significant improvement in mobile phone coverage over the next two years. . The small population base of the region is difficult to provide programs for and the region. Government policy over a period has resulted in a number of inequities for the region including: health, education and roads.. There needs to be an improvement in the relationships between Federal, State and regional bureaucracies.Upper Spencer GulfPhil Tyler-Chief Executive Officer, Whyalla Economic Development BoardMark Malcolm-Executive Manager, Port Pirie Regional Development BoardEyre PeninsulaIan Nightingale-Chief Executive Officer Eyre Regional Development BoardVance Thomas-Executive Officer Eyre Peninsula Local Government AssociationYorke/Mid-North/FlindersDon Pfitzner-Chairman, Mid North Regional Development BoardFar NorthBill Macintosh-Chairman, Outback Areas Community Development TrustSESSION 2Presentation by CommonwealthSema Varova: First Assistant Secretary, Regional Services, Development and Local Government Division, Department of Transport and Regional ServicesSession objective: To present a Commonwealth perspective on the range of approaches and initiatives required to improve the Commonwealth's responsiveness to regional needs.Ms Varova provided a brief outline of the broad range of Commonwealth activity in the Spencer Gulf area and its constituent regions. She described the work to date of the Commonwealth Interdepartmental working group on the Regional Forums Australia Programme and how this mechanism is designed to assist Federal agencies to take a whole of government approach rather than looking atissues from their own portfolio perspective and dealing with a region in isolation from other portfolios. She also described the task of the Transport and Regional Services portfolio in being responsible for coordinating cross-portfolio issues in relation to regional Australia.Ms Varova and other Federal agency representatives also took questions from the floor on the Federal Government's approach to regional Australia and particularly the Spencer Gulf Area.Facilitated Discussion of Commonwealth Position PaperIssues Raised:. There is a need for regional development programs that provide initiatives, which allow regions to become competitive. A focus on services doesn't allow this. While services such as Austrade and Invest Australia are excellent, they should be considered as the next step after the establishment of a regional development program.. The Federal Government's Green Paper on higher education discusses the potential role of local universities in the regional economy. The Lincoln Science Centre and Rural Health unit at Whyalla indicate that a model exists for building up regional university campuses. A critical issue is human resources and there is a case for providing funding to create higher level academic positions in areas such as agribusiness that would subsequently attract research students and allow building up rather than down sizing.. The inequity between the money collected from fuel taxes and the level of expenditure on roads.SESSION 3The Key Strategies and the Agenda for ChangeAn interactive session with a panel drawn from Commonwealth, State, Local Government and regional leaders:Session objective: To bring together all spheres of government and regional leaders to begin to identify and agree regional priorities for post-Forum action.Panel members:Phil TylerChief Executive Officer Whyalla Economic Development BoardIan NightingaleChief Executive Officer, Eyre Regional Development BoardDonald PfitznerChairman, Mid North Regional Development BoardBill MacintoshChairman, Outback Areas Community Development TrustTony CrichtonActing Director , South Australian Office of Regional DevelopmentHenry CroftAdministrator, Buttlingarra Aboriginal Corporation Barbara Derham Chairperson, Area Consultative CommitteeBarry WakelinFederal Member for GreySema VarovaFirst Assistant Secretary, Department of Transport and Regional Services Issues Raised:. A key policy issue for State, Commonwealth and Local Governments is how to turn a limited amount of money to the strategic advantage of many varying regions. It is critical to develop a communication strategy so people in the regions can understand what can be offered by various government agencies.. There is a need for a whole of government approach.. State employment programs ie Kickstart have provided an excellent example of empowering local communities to determine the priority and direction of funding.. A problem for Regional Development Boards is tapping into funding programs, which are very competitive and require time-consuming submissions. The marketing and communication of these programs also needs improving.. Dollar for dollar matching funding programs of the Commonwealth, disenfranchise poorer areas who most need assistance.. State employment programs eg Kickstart have greater flexibility and give more responsibility to the regions than Commonwealth programs. The region would like to see this "mature" type of relationship develop with the Commonwealth.. The SA Regional Development Taskforce report produced a number of excellent recommendations. Ways of implementing these should be investigated.. Projects in Aboriginal lands (eg Gawler Craton) offer employment benefits to local communities and tribal people do not want to hold up development. There is however a need for improved communication in relation to sacred site issues as there have been instances where developers have not acknowledged these issues (Lake Gairdner). Aboriginal people are happy to work cooperatively with Councils to identify areas, which do not have sacred site status. (Wudinna). The Area Consultative Committee (ACC) should have a broad cross section from the community including representatives from the business sector. It should work with all levels of government and the regional economic development boards.. There are inequities with Commonwealth funding for local roads and Financial Assist ance Grants, between the eastern states and this region. The per capita formulas used for these funds disadvantage the Spencer Gulf area.. Equity of outcomes is a key issue, people shouldn't be disadvantaged by lesser services because of their decision to live in a regional area.. Equity of access to funding should be given to the regions along with the responsibility for dispersing it. Transparency in funding provision is required to built trust.. There is a current lack of coordination in funding programs.. Regions need to be clearly defined for funding programs. Some AusIndustry programs have been unsuitable for implementation in some regions.. Solutions should be defined to fit regions.. Many reports have been prepared for Aboriginal people by State and Federal government including those on health, deaths in custody and employment. Many of these have not been acted on and funding associated with reports has not reached indigenous people. Services should be better coordinated to reach people who really need it.. Equity of access to intellectual capital. There is a need for access to a wider range of tertiary courses in regional areas.. An expectation in coming to the forum was that people wouldn't be told there was no more money and that more innovation is required.. There are opportunities for employment in regional areas. These opportunities and the benefits of country living should be marketed at the Federal and State level. The Federal government could provide economic development officers in established economic development boards.. Access to and equity in social service provision. There are a growing number of people dependent on welfare and services and an increase in the number of social problems. Economic development initiatives may benefit larger regional centres but have alarming affects on smaller centres through shifting of resources.. The time taken in getting approval for regional projects (eg 3 years) can result in lost opportunities. . There is an opportunity to channel ACC funds into Regional Development boards.. Lack of infrastructure creates loss of development and can constrain associated employment opportunities. Eg Winery expansion disapproved by Council due to insufficient road infrastructure.. ATSIC funding is divided into many programs with different guidelines. Aboriginal people have limited access to funding programs. CDC funding has not benefited Aboriginal communities in the region. (eg Gulf Link Ferry, Oyster farm).. Regional Development boards and the ACC should take a leadership role in the region and develop telecommunications expertise.. Regional areas have greater access to fresh air and an environment with lower levels of crime and stress.. Environmental issues should be seen as opportunities. Ways of integrating economic and environmental issues should be investigated.. Outback mining developments tend to have significant levels of "fly-in fly-out" employees and use contractors. These issues need to be considered in estimating their value to the region.. A beneficial aspect of the forum is the opportunity it provides for regional people to link up with Commonwealth agency representatives and pursue issues relating to specific programs.SESSION 4Identification of Priority Issues for Day 2 Working GroupsSession objective: Participants identified four to five topics drawn from agreed regional priorities for more detailed examination in facilitated Working Groups on Day 2.The following six workshop topics were identified following Session 4Workshop No. 1: Partnering for Regional DevelopmentWorkshop No. 2: Equity for RegionsWorkshop No. 3: Opportunities for the RegionWorkshop No. 4: Infrastructure & PlanningWorkshop No. 5: Breaking Down the "Silos" and sharing controlWorkshop No. 6: Better Co-ordination for Aboriginal DevelopmentDay 2- July 23rdWorking Breakfast "The Bishop's Wake-up Call"Bishop Eugene Hurley, Bishop of Port Pirie SESSION 5:Facilitated Working Groups on Regional PrioritiesSession objective: Facilitated Working Groups on agreed regional priorities. The working groups developed implementation strategies and recommended actions.Workshop No 1: Partnering for Regional DevelopmentKey targeted projects:. In 3 months to explore whether we can have a "signed off" memorandum of understanding (MOU) on the recommendations of the Spencer Gulf Common Purpose Group Report. Explore areas for more flexibility in the special purpose funding for infrastructure—roads, power & water. Steering group to develop and facilitate a communication process network between AusIndustry and potential clients in the Spencer Gulf region. ATSIC suggests a proposal for developing an agreed and defined partnerships between the Steering Group and the new ATSIC Regional Council. A memorandum of understanding to be developed by Department of Transport and Regional Services to offer a "case manager" service to requests/enquiries from the Spencer Gulf region.Criteria for models on partnership-to be tested:. Process must be merit driven. Government as a broker. Advocacy. Government to provide a "case manager". Potential for early communication and advice. Distilling from previous models for success. How to build personal relationships?. Marketing programs and also the regional group. Flexible time length (set in MOU). Develop a model MOU for use with all projects (either by service or region). Learn lessons from "excellent" contact officers- what works and what would help. Explore flexibility in: approach, process, application, reporting, evaluation & funding models. 2 way approach to streamlining & rationalisation- "We don't just want more-we are all prepared to give and take" Workshop No. 2: Equity for RegionsScope:. Program/funding information. Funding (including : Local Government Financial Assistance Grants (FAGs), GST, Tax Share). Intellectual capital/education. Health and social services. Information & technology. Government servicesFocus on:1. Gaining improved equity from traditional sources ie FAGs, road grants, GST allocation, major State/Federal programs2. Improving equity for the region by community action in attracting and holding private investment-self help3. Inclusive decision making processes-a holistic approach which gets the regions in the decision making loop from day 1 . New investment opportunities . Withdrawal of services and . Structural adjustment processesAll underpinned by the need for flexibility—one size, one process doesn't fit all.The Action PlanOver the next four months we want to engage with Federal, State, Local and regional leaders to examine. Funding formulae in relation to major regional grants. Action: Nominate a working group within 2 weeks of today and meet within 1 month. Live case study around investment proposal- 2 or 3 projects. Action: Selection of studies and a working group to consider inclusive decision making structures and processes within 1 month.Message: Renewal fostering of leadershipWorkshop No. 3: Opportunities for the Region. There is a need to develop . A belief in the region. "Be different and tell people" . Partnerships with both government and the private sector . The right mindset to build on opportunities . Campaigns to market itself both within and outside the region . Involvement from the media . A regional brand A number of opportunities that could be developed or further built upon include: . Cuttlefish diving . Tourism in Cooper Pedy . Oyster farming . Flinders Ranges . An education city . Recreation . Fishing . Roxby Downs expansion . Pichi Richi Rail . Steel works toursAction Plan: Market the region to investors with Commonwealth, State & Local Government groupsWorkshop No. 4: Infrastructure & Planning1. Funding Programs- State and Federal Governments to consult on guidelines—identify the representative group to consult with.2. Federal Government response to executive summary of Regional Future Brief3. Planning Issues. Pilot on industrial land zoning performance measures—Newcastle-BHP4. Integration of Federal/State/Local Government regional development efforts. eg rural counselling5. Infrastructure Audit: Establish priorities; include strategies in an information clearing house/ GIS system for all infrastructure related information.6. Develop skills and expertise in smaller communities to take full advantage of information technology and fund human resources in Councils and Regional Development Boards to input information into the "clearing house"7. Business case development to ensure that all parts of the region have access to telecommunication infrastructure at reasonable prices.8. Genuine commitment to establishing Places of Presence (POP's) in the Spencer Gulf9. Amend the criteria for funding mobile telephones to enable improved access for remote locations10. Review of funding criteria for: road funding, FAGs. Consider different equations in recognition of hardships11. Better market approval processes12. Pilot cooperative investment projects + market models . Tourism-Interpretative centre . Federal/State/Local and private investment . Effluent treatment . Economies of scale in offering a number of infrastructure projects . Facilitate process through Invest AustraliaWorkshop No. 5: Breaking Down the "Silos" and sharing controlRegional agreement upon a real development opportunity as a test case in two discrete zones. Coastal. Non coastalAlong the way the project must have all agencies agreeing with the process. Define projects. Terms of reference . Long term model covering economic environmental and social considerations. Time Line . 1 month for regions to agree on the project . 2 months for all parties to meet . 3 months DECISION to goWorkshop No. 6: Better Co-ordination for Aboriginal Development1. Regional autonomy. More direct funding to the regions would offer benefits including reduced time constraints, which is commercially beneficial. Two regional plans currently exist in the region. Port Augusta & Ceduna. Approach to RCC. Refer SA Regional Development Taskforce.2. Promotion of positive achievements. Eg Public relations, Ministerial endorsement for local initiatives. Eg Buttlingarra3. Building trust/brokering—. A brokering role by Regional Development Boards could improve project credibility4. Consider a changed perception of accountability. ATSIC has comprehensive evaluation and audit processes. Regional communities also have a responsibility in relation to accountability.SESSION 6Constituent Regions De-briefing+Chaired by Regional Steering Group MembersSession objective: Opportunity for participants from each of the four regions to de-brief with their representative on the Steering Group prior to the Steering Group considering the Post-Forum Action Plan. The focus was on proposed strategic actions and accompanying timetables for four-month period after the Forum. Feed-back from Steering Group members on Proposed strategic actions and Timetables for Post- Forum Action PlanCOMMON PURPOSE GROUP1. Memorandum of understanding with the Common Purpose Group—Strategic plan2. State/Federal/Local Government. Memorandum of understanding on forum issues. Communications—Local Government.3. Review of criteria for Local Government funding—roads4. Department of Transport & Regional Services (Case Manager)EYRE PENINSULASignposts1. More certainty in planning and development processes2. Equity in funding—the case for a regional development fund3. Practical outcomes4. Lift the regions game in advocacy/marketingOutcomes. Commitment to changeMID NORTH/YORKE/FLINDERS1. Direct Federal Government involvement in existing regional development boards (including appropriate funding)2. Access to Regional Assistance Program funding for an infrastructure audit3. Marketing (equity issue) by Federal Government on opportunity and contribution of country Australia. (Leadership by Federal Government)4. Information technology infrastructure as a priority for Government.5. Funding review—economic outcome drivenFAR NORTH1. Authorities have a better understanding of the types of disadvantages and commit to assisting on a needs basis rather than per capita basis.2. Infrastructure and communications are a priority with more interaction between the Anangu Pitjantjatjara (Aboriginal) lands and the rest of the region3. Commitment to organising partnerships dedicated to achieving results and having a network of people known to these partnerships in terms of who they are and what they do.4. No change to FAGs grants except to find a way that enhances them for small CouncilsThe forum concluded with agreement that further outcomes will be documented as they are deter mined through the Regional Forum Programme process.9786(Question No. 1355)13559786Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WoodleyHX5QLDAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 26 August 1999:(1) How many screen fades or failures have occurred at Australian air traffic control towers during the implementation of the Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (TAAATS), dating from its commencement to the present date.(2) (a) Where and on what dates did these screen fades or failures occur; (b) at what locations; and (c) what were the ramifications (for example, which planes from which airlines were required to go into holding patterns, change their landing plans et cetera).(3) (a) Which air traffic control towers using TAAATS have been supplied with backup systems; and (b) which have not.(4) Can an assurance be given that no further TAAATS sectors will be commissioned without backup systems immediately in place.(5) Does the Government have any plans to sell or market the model for TAAATS system.9786Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Airservices Australia has advised the following:(1) There have been 10 screen-related failures or instances of reduced screen functionality in control towers since the start of TAAATS commissioning in August 1998.(2) (a) and (b) These failures or reduced functionality occurred as follows:Cairns:12 August 199813 August 19983 December 1998Canberra:12 March 1999 (i)Melbourne:8 April 199920 June 199925 June 1999Sydney:8 July 199919 July 19991 September 1999 (ii)Note (i) Occurred outside tower operating hours (ii) Occurred during curfew hours(c) All of these failures were short term and did not generate any safety incidents. Airservices advises that it has no reports of any delays to aviation operations caused by these failures.(3) (a) and (b) The TAAATS system features high levels of redundancy, and all TAAATS tower staff are trained for, and capable of, backup modes of operation. All TAAATS Towers are supplied and fitted with multiple operational radar screens/displays and a bypass function automatically provides continued access to local radar data in the event of a main system failure. Additionally, Sydney Tower staff have access at each console to the display of local radar data via a separate system which is totally independent of TAAATS.(4) Commissioning decisions are made on a case by case basis and take into account the circumstances of particular sectors including the associated detailed safety risk assessments. Where the safety assessment identifies the need for particular mitigating strategies such as back-up systems, these are provided and activated as necessary.(5) The TAAATS system comprises a number of elements, most of which are not the intellectual property of Airservices. However, Airservices has expertise associated with the operational and system support aspects of TAAATS, eg training, systems engineering and technical support. These capabilities are being sought by other countries and, where appropriate, Airservices is actively involved in bids with other organisations to introduce TAAATS based systems in other countries. 9787(Question No. 1525)15259787Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 21 September 1999.(1) How many departmental officers have attended external staff development courses since 3 March 1996.(2) What is the total cost of the external staff development courses attended by the officers of the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996.(3) (a) How many external staff development courses attended by departmental or agency staff since 3 March 1996, have contained training on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act; and (b) of this number, how many: (i) werespecifically focusing on the subject of freedom of information decisions, and (ii) how many dealt with the issue amongst others.(4) Of the courses relevant to (3), which agencies or consultants provided that training.(5) What is the total cost of the courses in (3).9787Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) 3828(2) $1,923,407(3) (a) 7 (b) (i) 3 (ii) 4(4). AGS. Australian Institute of Management. PSMPC. Seminars Australia(5) $17,495